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.
[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".
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.
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).