Hacker News Reader

Comment by vidarh | Hacker News Reader

This comparison is flawed because there is not legal pickpocketing, but there is legal immigration.

If there was a legal pickpocketing, and someone claimed to only be opposed to illegal pickpocketing, then it would be reasonable to point out that unless they're lying about their intent a solution to preventing illegal pickpocketing would be to make it all legal.

The analogy falls apart because nobody argues that they are "only" opposed to illegal pickpicketing.

If people are opposed to any form of immigration, then they should just admit that, rather than pretend they're only opposed to illegal immigration.

View on HN

a. Opposed to someone taking my money against my will and the law just because they want to, “for a better life”.

b. Not opposed to someone taking my money in exchange for goods or services I want.

a. Opposed to someone moving into my country against my will and the law just because they want to, “for a better life”.

b. Not opposed to someone moving into my country because I married them and want them here.

There’s a whole spectrum between a and b, but I think most people are against a.

Legal pickpocketing is taxes you’re opposed to, or wages being garnished.

In theory people who say they’re only against illegal immigration are saying they completely agree with all policies regarding legal immigration, now and maybe into the future. Likely not what these people actually believe because while possible it would be a silly position. They’re probably just saying it to try to find some common ground with very pro immigration people. Likely a fools errand.

You've invented a whole new set of categories of pickpocketing that most people would disagree has anything to do with pickpocketing to justify a flawed argument.

To your last paragraph, no, they are not. There is no automatic implication that people will not change their minds depending on the situation. The argument is not that they can never change their minds, but that it is deceitful to pretend to only oppose illegal immigration in current circumstances and then go on to demonstrate they are also opposed to the currently legal immigration.

Breaking and entering is to immigrating as pickpocketing is to taking my stuff.

Sometimes immigration is legal. Sometimes taking my stuff is legal.

There’s often overlap between legality and what people support or oppose, but not always.

“I oppose something that’s already against the rules” is a simpler/easier argument, rather than saying “I oppose the against the rules thing, and some of the stuff that isn’t against the rules currently”. I think that's why people make this argument of "only against illegal immigration". I agree it could be deceitful, taking the easier argument. It’s also not a tactic that works long term though if it just results in the immigration they were against being made legal. A stronger anti immigration stance, legal or illegal, would be a better starting point.

To be fair there may also be some people who a couple years ago really did only oppose illegal immigration but were then exposed to new information, and changed their mind to oppose some or all legal immigration as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com