Consistency on Illegal Immigration

[Ranger2]

In part thanks to Trump's ridiculous plan to build a wall, the Left has wholeheartedly embraced the open-borders side of illegal immigration. I live in Chicago, and during the city's weekly protest, whether it's about reproductive rights or healthcare, there is always a contingent in the parade shouting "Hey hey! Hear hear! Immigrants are welcome here!"

Yet there seem to be many instances in which many who lean to the left would tend to oppose immigration, legal or illegal. For example, Israel. In the SJW crowd, there tends to be somewhat of a consensus that Jewish illegal immigration to Mandatory Palestine led to the appropriation of Palestinian land for an alien Jewish state. And if you believe that to be true, that's fine, but then it would be inconsistent then to oppose improved border security for the United States. Illegal immigration didn't work out for the Palestinians.

A popular political cartoon about the issue is some variant of the juxtaposition of a white American yelling at a latino immigrant for coming here illegally while a Native American points out how the same applies to the white American. And that's technically true--the Pilgrims certainly weren't vetted by Wampanoag customs officials--comparing European immigration to latino immigration is meaningless. If you want to express support for one wave of immigration, it doesn't help your case to vilify another.

Let's also not forget that in the early 1800s many Americans illegally immigrated to Texas and California, leading to their secession from Mexico. Or that even before that, Mexicans illegally immigrated to and claimed those lands from the native tribes. The Navajo and Apache certainly didn't--and still don't--consider themselves latino or Mexican.

I don't mind if someone is all for open border and unrestricted immigration. What just bugs me is that many tend to selectively choose which emigrations to support and oppose.

[ratchili]

At 3/25/17 10:53 PM, Ranger2 wrote: I don't mind if someone is all for open border and unrestricted immigration. What just bugs me is that many tend to selectively choose which emigrations to support and oppose.

Politics is like 90% hypocrisy, you'll have to learn to live with that. Like how the left seems very on board with loose immigration under the guise of "DON'T BE INTOLERANT YOU SHITLORDS" and then refuse to even glance at the horribly intolerant customs and practices of certain cultures they are willing to accept. Personally, I don't mind mass immigration, but I feel like countries need to be more careful about how it's done if they allow it. You can accept some real bad apples if you're not picky.

I definitely agree that people need to be more consistent when it comes to opinions on immigration, problem's that a lot of people aren't quite educated on how the system works and the general culture of specific areas in the world. A lot of assumptions are made when it comes to the topic of immigration.

[orangebomb]

At 3/26/17 12:04 AM, Chat-man wrote: Politics is like 90% hypocrisy, you'll have to learn to live with that. Like how the left seems very on board with loose immigration under the guise of "DON'T BE INTOLERANT YOU SHITLORDS" and then refuse to even glance at the horribly intolerant customs and practices of certain cultures they are willing to accept. Personally, I don't mind mass immigration, but I feel like countries need to be more careful about how it's done if they allow it. You can accept some real bad apples if you're not picky.

Pretty much this. I don't have a problem with immigration, it's part of our history after all, but that does not mean that everyone should have their foot in the door. What Europe did was to accept everyone, regardless of their criminal backgrounds and we see how that turned out with constant stories of rape, assault and terrorist attacks. Of course there is a lot more than just that, but it's a big reason. At least with vetting like we have in America, the ones that aren't on the straight and narrow get cast aside, greatly reducing the chances of getting extremists and other undesirables from entering in.

I definitely agree that people need to be more consistent when it comes to opinions on immigration, problem's that a lot of people aren't quite educated on how the system works and the general culture of specific areas in the world. A lot of assumptions are made when it comes to the topic of immigration.

Immigration is a more complicated issue than people want to make it out to be. In addition to culture shock from the immigrants' perspective, politicians are divided on the whole concept, even among those within their own party. For one group of Republicans who are opposed to immigration outright, (chiefly Latin American and Middle Eastern) there is the Walmart/day laborers group who may not really care for them, but acknowledge that they need them for the cheap labor.

Politicians usually try to simplify complicated issues in order to appeal to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and in a way, I get it. Politics as a whole is complicated, and there is a lot of nuance and complications that goes with it behind the scenes. Having said that, I would rather have the voting populous be more informed and serious when they vote instead of treating it as a joke or influenced by questionable groups.

[Verspar]

At 3/26/17 01:29 AM, SumQuodEris wrote: I once read an article where at some point where the author basically said that it was hypocritical for Europeans to oppose mass immigration because of Cortés and the Aztecs, and I was like: I'm not sure whether you want to take that analogy any further.

Did they forget the part where Cortés fuck shit up and how the conquerors were considered evil because the believed it was their right to fuck said shit up?

At 3/27/17 10:35 PM, Sensationalism wrote: Personally I want immigration reform so the process of becoming a legal citizen is simplified and streamlined. I don't want to see families broken apart or extra stress added to already stressed people.

Yeah, that would be awesome because my mom was once an illegal (undocumented) immigrant, but my brother was born in California. She was deported and she brought him with her, but the possibility that they would be broken up must've been tough. Now she's documented and we live here, which is fine, but my sister is currently a resident, rather than a citizen because she was born three months too soon and has never lived anywhere else.

My sister could take the naturalization interview, but she freaks out about tests. She should know some of the things in the civic portion, but she struggled in history and civics when she was in high school. I should show her the website used as a resource because she may be amazed how easy it is (she never applied for naturalization). The real question is, is it best to get it now even with the current president? it may still be better than surviving in a not-so-great-country that she doesn't know the language to, never been to since birth, and know nothing about. Sometimes, I feel like I should've been the one to not be born here because I would ace the test easily.

Politically I think only the Native Americans of this country should get to decide on this issue. It's a little silly for immigrants to put restrictions on other immigrants.

I can't agree as the natives were technically the first migrants, but I do think the government's treatment of the natives is atrocious and hypocritical.

[Camarohusky]

At 3/28/17 05:55 PM, Entice wrote: Anything looks like hypocrisy if you compare vastly different scenarios across periods of hundreds of years while falsely claiming that a group of people supports all those actions.

I think this thread is completely over. However, I do think some of the specific analogies could use some pointed discussion.

[StatKing]

Politics thread please.