Hacker News Reader

Comment by palmotea | Hacker News Reader

> but democrats don’t govern as if it’s true and those aren’t positions espoused by the vast majority of the party, including all the ones with notable power.

Even if that's true, those kind of positions are a notable and visible part of progressive/Democratic culture.

For instance, the famous "in this house we believe" yard sign (https://www.amazon.com/Debbies-Designs-18x24-inch-Weatherpro...). "No human is illegal" can be reasonably interpreted to imply "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy."

It was also pretty well documented in the 2024 postmortems that people and groups who espoused those extreme positions were very constraining on "democrats...with notable power."

View on HN

> "No human is illegal" can be reasonably interpreted to imply "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy."

Reasonably? No.

So how was that supposed to be interpreted? "everyone should receive due process?" Why don't they just say that, instead of trying to do a motte and bailey where the sign makes an absolutist statement on immigration policy, that then gets walked back on to something anodyne?

It's a (I agree somewhat silly) rejection of labelling people "illegals".

I assure you that very few of the people with those signs want open borders. That's a position held by almost nobody.

Back to the point: when did the democrats shift to any of these alleged positions? They didn't. It's what the opposition says they did, but they in-fact didn't.

>Back to the point: when did the democrats shift to any of these alleged positions? They didn't. It's what the opposition says they did, but they in-fact didn't.

That's a distinction without a difference. If Democratic voters and activists are pushing for a given position, it's cold comfort to the independent or Republican that it's not an official position of the Democratic party (whatever that might mean). Just look at Project 2025. It was produced by the Heritage Foundation, a right-leaning think tank that is technically independent of the GOP. Trump even distanced himself from it during the campaign. Does that mean Democrats aren't right to worry about it, because it wasn't an official position?

This is absurd.

Look at the things you're comparing: a misreading of a somewhat-common yard sign plus what Fox News and Mark Levin say the democrats support, versus a concerted effort by a highly influential prominent think-tank that involved so very many top folks in Trump's campaign that his statements distancing himself from it were never anything but blatant lies.

Show me something actually equivalent, and you'll have a point. Find me the most-influential think tank you can that supports stuff like "abolishing the police force" or "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy". CFR? Brookings? Atlantic Council? IDK, find one. Find a policy statement on that stuff, Democrats usually put tons of policy docs on their campaign websites because they're nerds who incorrectly think normal people both can and are willing to read, so it should be well-documented. After all, the claim was that they shifted their campaign focus to that! To "abolishing the police force" (?!) and such. Not that a few individual democrats with little or no power said some things, maybe.

> That's a distinction without a difference.

Once you erase the long list of material fucking differences, sure.

> If Democratic voters and activists are pushing for a given position

ALMOST NONE ARE. The person who "deny[ies] the basic right for country to have an immigration policy" is vanishingly rare and you'll have at least as much luck finding them among the committed libertarian sorts as even the farther-left end of democrats—still not much luck, but about as much.

It's correct to say it's a problem for democrats that people think they hold these positions. It's incorrect to say it's because they in-fact do. It's because of effective propaganda.

You folks are assigning a caricature of their positions to them and then blaming them for adopting those caricatured positions. WT literal F.

>Look at the things you're comparing: a misreading of a somewhat-common yard sign plus what Fox News and Mark Levin say the democrats support

You're over-indexing on the influence of "Fox News and Mark Levin". Most people aren't news junkies. The whole contention is that people who aren't going out of their way to find uncharitable interpretations of "no human is illegal" will think that it's a pro-immigration message. By that I don't mean something like "we should use better names", I mean policies like unlimited migration, or even something like amnesty for all undocumented immigrants in the US. You reject this premise[1][2], but haven't really provided any justification for why that interpretation is unreasonable.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43973117.

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43973295

>Show me something actually equivalent, and you'll have a point. Find me the most-influential think tank you can that supports stuff like "abolishing the police force" or "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy".

>It's correct to say it's a problem for democrats that people think they hold these positions. It's incorrect to say it's because they in-fact do. It's because of effective propaganda.

>You folks are assigning a caricature of their positions to them and then blaming them for adopting those caricatured positions. WT literal F.

Again, my contention isn't that the Democratic party or left-leaning think tanks hold those positions, it's that they're poorly worded, leading independents and centrist Republicans to misinterpret their message, and pushing them away from the Democrats.

Note the original comment you replied to claims that "those kind of positions are a notable and visible part of progressive/Democratic culture". It says nothing about whether such positions are the official policies of the Democratic party.

> Note the original comment you replied to claims that "those kind of positions are a notable and visible part of progressive/Democratic culture". It says nothing about whether such positions are the official policies of the Democratic party.

No, the claim was:

> The democrats have fundamentally abandoned the working class in favor of stupid wedge issues. It was the "progressives" who chose to shift their campaign focus onto gaining more privileges for trans women, abolishing the police force, endorsing Islamic supremacist groups tale of their own victimhood, and denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy. I don't see how any of this is aimed at the working class.

The only one of the four claimed positions that's even arguably not a fantasy ginned up by Republican propaganda is the one about trans women. The post was blaming democrats for taking positions that they did not take.

> I assure you that very few of the people with those signs want open borders. That's a position held by almost nobody.

People said similar things about those "abolish the police" signs: "B-b-but, it doesn't actually mean literally abolishing the police..."

> Reasonably? No.

Sorry, yes. Given the political charge around the term "illegal," the sign repudiates the status of "illegal immigrant," and if you can't have illegal immigrants (or whatever euphemism of the day is), you can't have an immigration policy.

An act can be illegal. I don't see how a person can be illegal. Being in a country illegally is an act, not an inherent property of a person.

Trying to say a person is illegal seems like a non-starter for useful reasoning because it seems to absolve people of responsibility for their actions, since nothing can be done about who a person inherently is.

This is pretzel-logic to justify the original absurd claim. No, it’s not reasonable at all.

> This is pretzel-logic to justify the original absurd claim. No, it’s not reasonable at all.

No it isn't. It's what you need to interpret the sign. It's not list of literal statements statement of clear positions, but a thing that plays off vibes and associations to send a political message without being super direct (at least when it was new).

But if you think my interpretation absurd (which it is not), what you you think "no human is illegal" means, in the context of the sign?

The problem may be that the wide use of these kinds of vague signals and slogans invited misinterpretation.

See my explanation a couple posts away. It means the thing that many on the left often express on this topic, not the thing that almost none ever do.

[EDIT] To ground this, the claim is that it's reasonable to interpret "no human is illegal" as "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy". This is a "reasonable" leap reached by following "what you need to interpret the sign". Not a hostile interpretation by someone who already decided what's what and is working backwards from that.

>[EDIT] To ground this, the claim is that it's reasonable to interpret "no human is illegal" as "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy". This is a "reasonable" leap reached by following "what you need to interpret the sign". Not a hostile interpretation by someone who already decided what's what and is working backwards from that.

I don't get it. Are you conceding that independents and Republicans might genuinely believe that "No human is illegal" means all migration should be legal? By "genuinely believe ", I don't mean a maximally uncharitable interpretation either, but at the same time I also don't expect them to go out of their way to figure out exactly what is meant by "No human is illegal".

> See my explanation a couple posts away. It means the thing that many on the left often express on this topic, not the thing that almost none ever do.

And "abolish the police" doesn't mean literally abolish the police, and it's absurd to think it does, amirite?

> Not a hostile interpretation by someone who already decided what's what and is working backwards from that.

Interpreting "no human is illegal" as implying "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy," is not a "hostile interpretation." In fact, I'd say denying that as a reasonable interpretation requires a pretty high degree of bias and motivated thinking (akin to the attempts to calm the slogan "abolish the police" does not actually indicate support for literally abolishing the police).

The only context where "illegal" was ever used to describe a person was "illegal immigrant" (or the older term, "illegal alien"). It was explicitly about immigration policy.

Yes, in that context. It was extremely common to shorthand that to "illegals", as in, "Bob says he's gotta hire illegals or he can't find anyone who'll shingle houses for him", or, "I don't know why they can't mine the border to stop the illegals" (I guess I can assign that as a position the Republicans "shifted" to and then blame them for it since I've heard multiple actual Republican voters say it, no interpretation required, they literally stated they want a minefield on the border? That'd be more connected to reality than the rest of this nonsense thread).

Democrats have been pushing back on the language of that, because "illegals" had plainly become a slur and tool for othering and dehumanizing. I think democrats focus on that horse-shit way too much—though, then again, shifting language that way as that kind of political tool is something Republicans do and had done in this case, so maybe I'm wrong and they're right for trying to stop it—but that's what the sign's about, it's a topic they've had a bug up their ass about for like twenty damn years.

That doesn't fit with how they've started trying to replace the term "illegal immigrant" with "undocumented immigrant".

You wrote "doesn't fit" and then described something that fits entirely. I'm not following.

There are many ridiculous debates around immigration, and the trouble with public discourse is that it cannot be too, too specific or detailed about the demands/requirements of voters, and I think we know that if it were specific or detailed, those details would look extremely racist, xenophobic, classist or a combination thereof.

Many people on both sides of the aisle have cried out for "immigration reform", even "comprehensive immigration reform". What do they mean by that? We've seen various keywords fly by, like "amnesty" or "quotas" or something.

So why do we need that reform? Are too many domestic jobs occupied by foreigners? Are illegals committing violent/sexual crimes at an alarming rate? Are foreigners dangerous to national security or stability? Which foreigners and why?

People protested the so-called "Muslim ban" but in reality, all immigration policy must differentiate among regions and nations and allocate resources/quotas appropriately.

People on the left can go down to "The Wall" and give "humanitarian aid" to immigrants who may "die in the desert" but that's not really where the immigration crisis is [if indeed there is one at all,] because most "illegals" are people who got here legally and then ... overstayed their visa for some reason.

I believe that immigration is just another wedge issue and talking point, without enough substance presented to the public for us to make real decisions about it. Real immigration policy is complex, nuanced, and someone in Congress is going to need to stack up a "Reform Bill" the size of Obamacare and then pass it, so that we'll know what's in it.

>and I think we know that if it were specific or detailed, those details would look extremely racist, xenophobic, classist or a combination thereof.

Really? This time around the discourse around Trump's immigration polices seem to be based around practicalities (eg. American competitiveness, impact on the labor market) rather than principles. Even in the cases where it's based on principles, they're principles like due process rather than "-isms" you listed.

Trump's rhetoric around illegal immigration has mostly been about how tons of them are violent criminals, about reducing fentanyl smuggling (that's overwhelmingly done by US citizens for obvious reasons, but whatever), "invasions", and gangs, no less so in this campaign than the last. Effects on the labor market get some attention, but nothing like those other aspects.

[EDIT] From the Trump campaign's "2024 GOP Platform" doc:

----

1. Secure the Border

Republicans will restore every Border Policy of the Trump administration and halt all releases of Illegal Aliens into the interior. We will complete the Border Wall, shift massive portions of Federal Law Enforcement to Immigration Enforcement, and use advanced technology to monitor and secure the Border. We will use all resources needed to stop the Invasion— including moving thousands of Troops currently stationed overseas to our own Southern Border. We will deploy the U.S. Navy to impose a full Fentanyl Blockade on the waters of our Region—boarding and inspecting ships to look for fentanyl and fentanyl precursors. Before we defend the Borders of Foreign Countries, we must first secure the Border of our Country.

2. Enforce Immigration Laws

Republicans will strengthen ICE, increase penalties for illegal entry and overstaying Visas, and reinstate “Remain in Mexico” and other Policies that helped reduce Illegal Immigration by historic lows in President Trump’s first term. We will also invoke the Alien Enemies Act to remove all known or suspected gang members, drug dealers, or cartel members from the United States, ending the scourge of Illegal Alien gang violence once and for all. We will bring back the Travel Ban, and use Title 42 to end the child trafficking crisis by returning all trafficked children to their families in their Home Countries immediately.

3. Begin Largest Deportation Program in American History

President Trump and Republicans will reverse the Democrats’ destructive Open Borders Policies that have allowed criminal gangs and Illegal Aliens from around the World to roam the United States without consequences. The Republican Party is committed to sending Illegal Aliens back home and removing those who have violated our Laws.

4. Strict Vetting

Republicans will use existing Federal Law to keep foreign Christian-hating Communists, Marxists, and Socialists out of America. Those who join our Country must love our Country. We will use extreme vetting to ensure that jihadists and jihadist sympathizers are not admitted.

5. Stop Sanctuary Cities

Republicans will cut federal Funding to sanctuary jurisdictions that release dangerous Illegal Alien criminals onto our streets, rather than handing them over to ICE. We will require local cooperation with Federal Immigration Enforcement.

6. Ensure Our Legal Immigration System Puts American Workers First

Republicans will prioritize Merit-based immigration, ensuring those admitted to our Country contribute positively to our Society and Economy, and never become a drain on Public Resources. We will end Chain Migration, and put American Workers first!

----

This basically fits with his proxies' rhetoric on e.g. Fox News, and his points at rallies: a little about the jobs aspect, but most of it's about how dangerous illegal immigrants are.

>Trump's rhetoric around illegal immigration has mostly been about how tons of them are violent criminals, about reducing fentanyl smuggling (that's overwhelmingly done by US citizens for obvious reasons, but whatever), "invasions", and gangs, no less so in this campaign than the last. Effects on the labor market get some attention, but nothing like those other aspects.

I meant the discourse justifying pushback from the left, after the policies were enacted.

I follow now! Sorry, I can read good, I promise.

Yes, the economic consequences (long-term to research and researcher-training and the industries that rely on them on the one end, and shorter term to e.g. farm and construction labor on the other) are definitely a highlight of democratic rhetoric against Trump's immigration enforcement regime & priorities, as far as "why we shouldn't do this", second perhaps only to matters of due process now that those have been forced to the fore (which is more of a, "regardless of what we're trying to do, this is an illegal way to go about it").

I suppose the third pillar of the push-back, maybe also more-prominent than the economic argument now that vague concerns have become concrete, is on humanitarian grounds, resisting specifically deporting people who're likely to come to harm if they are sent back, and shipping people to foreign prisons controlled by states with poor human rights records—of course this is heavily tied up with the whole due-process thing, since that's key to settling whether these sorts of claims have merit, if one cares whether they have merit.

It is true that Democrats often claim that a big part of why Republicans are so eager to crack down on illegal immigrants even at the expense of waves hand at paragraphs above is due to various -isms and -phobias, but you're right that I don't see a lot of "the reason we shouldn't do this is because it's racist/xenophobic", but rather "we shouldn't do this because [list of practical and humanitarian reasons]" (perhaps followed up by, "the reason the Republicans want to do this is racism and xenophobia", which I think is reductive and not very useful but is at least somewhat more-accurate than the opposing framing of motivation as, "democrats actively want, specifically, violent foreign criminals in our cities")

The hell it isn't reasonable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com