> "have no immigration enforcement and permanently halt deportations” is also unacceptable? The latter seems to be the solution being pushed by one party.
What party? What makes it "seem" that way? Could you link to anyone calling for this?
What party? What makes it "seem" that way? Could you link to anyone calling for this?
Merely for illustration, a single example: https://abc7.com/post/protests-expected-socal-part-nationwid...
> Protesters were seen carrying flags, signs and spraying graffiti on nearby property, including on the U.S. Courthouse sign where it read "No one is illegal on stolen land".
You are either misinformed, willfully ignorant or lying, and I've had it with this discussion style.
Yes, people who use "no one is illegal" do also say "no more borders". Not every single one, clearly humans are diverse, but your statement is just false.
Here a UK example even combining the statements (as I said, the movement is not limited to the US). https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.11073215
Another example, also showing this is an older movement (2005): https://www.statewatch.org/media/documents/news/2005/apr/int... ("No Borders/No One Is Illegal campaigns")
The grandparent post accurately captured what I have understood people to mean by "no one is illegal" -- it is meant to protest a dehumanizing way to describe a class of people.
Because we're looking for people saying borders should be completely opened. An example of people saying something else is irrelevant.
> Yes, people who use "no one is illegal" do also say "no more borders".
Ok but the conversation is about people saying the latter. It was you who brought the former into the conversation.
> Here a UK example
Which British parties are active in the United States?
> Another example, also showing this is an older movement
The claim was that "the left" has no response to emigration issues beyond "open all borders" and that this was the policy of "one party." The existence of an anti-borders movement is again irrelevant to the questions I raised in response to this assertion.
It only matters what we call them, if you want to keep them here forever. I think the present-day recommended term is probably just "immigrant" right? So basically we should call them the same thing we call the people who waited years for their turn and proved that they had a positive contribution to make to our society.
You think it makes no difference if we call them "the scum of the earth" or "below human entities" otherwise? Surely there's a line of what rhetoric you would tolerate. This is ours.
Don't you guys remind us about Obama being "the deporter in chief" every time you are given the occasion ?
This is completely orthogonal to the conversation, but I think you misunderstood that slogan. It does not mean “immigration rules must not be enforced”.
It means differentiating between a potentially illegal action (illegal entry/overstaying) and the person itself. You never talk about an illegal driver, or an illegal drinker, but people talk about illegal immigrants, with the implication that the person itself is illegal.
It’s subtle but it’s a step towards dehumanizing a person, or making infractions to their rights “count less” in the public eye.
Worse than that, we more and more often just see the term "illegals" being used, which completely removes the person from the description.