Immigration Issues

[laughing dog]

Look, I think having the same rules regarding proof of citizenship and identification for voting in all states is a good idea. I get that there aren't a ton of illegal people voting, but it continues to be a political talking point, and it continues to reduce trust in our elections.

Disinformation is reducing trust in our elections. Why aren’t the GOP and its media promoting accurate information?

I'm perfectly happy to discuss ways to facilitate people getting proof of their citizenship if it's lost, bearing the cost to initiate the process via taxes, and making sure there are good systems in place when people move or change names or whatever else. But can we at least discuss solutions instead of people just opposing it out of hand?

The GOP isn’t in discussions. The opposition is to their SAVE action and the implicit effect of that action.

Also, I didn't point it out earlier but there is no such thing as illegal people. It is not illegal to be a person, to exist.

To me this shows more to me that some folks might somewhere deep down WISH they could make some other kinds of folks "illegal".

To me, the only behavior that justifies being declared an illegal person is declaring other sorts of folks, any other sort of person, "illegal" on the foundation of "do not do unto others as you would not have them do to you", and "they who proclaim a right to not exist makes it cease to exist only for themselves".

Why do you think that engaging in intentionally misleading use of language gets you a win? This is an absolutely stupid abuse of words. The only people you convince with this "it's not illegal to be a person" are stupid people.

It is not illegal to be a person. That is reality. It may be illegal to in a country that does not make anyone an "illegal". The intentional misuse of language is to call undocumented aliens "illegals".

Yes, it is accepted by nativists, white nationalists, racists, their dupes and their enablers, but that does not make any less of a misuse of the word. And it is done either for political purposes or for stupid reasons.

 

[Toni]

Look, I think having the same rules regarding proof of citizenship and identification for voting in all states is a good idea. I get that there aren't a ton of illegal people voting, but it continues to be a political talking point, and it continues to reduce trust in our elections.

Disinformation is reducing trust in our elections. Why aren’t the GOP and its media promoting accurate information?

I'm perfectly happy to discuss ways to facilitate people getting proof of their citizenship if it's lost, bearing the cost to initiate the process via taxes, and making sure there are good systems in place when people move or change names or whatever else. But can we at least discuss solutions instead of people just opposing it out of hand?

The GOP isn’t in discussions. The opposition is to their SAVE action and the implicit effect of that action.

Also, I didn't point it out earlier but there is no such thing as illegal people. It is not illegal to be a person, to exist.

To me this shows more to me that some folks might somewhere deep down WISH they could make some other kinds of folks "illegal".

To me, the only behavior that justifies being declared an illegal person is declaring other sorts of folks, any other sort of person, "illegal" on the foundation of "do not do unto others as you would not have them do to you", and "they who proclaim a right to not exist makes it cease to exist only for themselves".

Why do you think that engaging in intentionally misleading use of language gets you a win? This is an absolutely stupid abuse of words. The only people you convince with this "it's not illegal to be a person" are stupid people.

Irony meter definitely broke with you criticizing another poster for ‘intentionally misleading use of language.’

There is no such thing as an illegal person. If you wish to be taken seriously in your arguments, you might be a little more thoughtful in the language you use.

 

[Jarhyn]

I take issue with the very notion that there is an “immigration issue” unless one is speaking of this:
View attachment 53705
That issue even says it’s an issue, right on it.
And it’s exactly what terrifies the promoters of “immigration issues”.

Whoever the hell “they” (immigrants) are, their record is better than ours when it comes to lawful behavior.

But I LIKE that face! It to me seems more roundly and completely human than the alien angles and shapes one sees in the faces of the ultra-wealthy.

Actually, that face is much prettier but as far as coloring goes: it could be me in my youth. My son’s hair is even darker, as is my granddaughter’s. We most closely resemble my father and my grandmother whose roots were primarily Welsh.

The Trump cult moneyed class is so full of latex that it boggles the imagination that anyone considers that look to be attractive

IKR? It's such a pretty face.

You know, it's interesting insofar as mutts tend to be more intelligent, physiologically robust, and have more filled-out traits and personalities.

Look, I think having the same rules regarding proof of citizenship and identification for voting in all states is a good idea. I get that there aren't a ton of illegal people voting, but it continues to be a political talking point, and it continues to reduce trust in our elections.

Disinformation is reducing trust in our elections. Why aren’t the GOP and its media promoting accurate information?

I'm perfectly happy to discuss ways to facilitate people getting proof of their citizenship if it's lost, bearing the cost to initiate the process via taxes, and making sure there are good systems in place when people move or change names or whatever else. But can we at least discuss solutions instead of people just opposing it out of hand?

The GOP isn’t in discussions. The opposition is to their SAVE action and the implicit effect of that action.

Also, I didn't point it out earlier but there is no such thing as illegal people. It is not illegal to be a person, to exist.

To me this shows more to me that some folks might somewhere deep down WISH they could make some other kinds of folks "illegal".

To me, the only behavior that justifies being declared an illegal person is declaring other sorts of folks, any other sort of person, "illegal" on the foundation of "do not do unto others as you would not have them do to you", and "they who proclaim a right to not exist makes it cease to exist only for themselves".

Why do you think that engaging in intentionally misleading use of language gets you a win? This is an absolutely stupid abuse of words. The only people you convince with this "it's not illegal to be a person" are stupid people.

It is not illegal to be a person. That is reality. It may be illegal to in a country that does not make anyone an "illegal". The intentional misuse of language is to call undocumented aliens "illegals".

Yes, it is accepted by nativists, white nationalists, racists, their dupes and their enablers, but that does not make any less of a misuse of the word. And it is done either for political purposes or for stupid reasons.

All I'm hearing is someone disregarding "do not do unto others as you would not have them do to you", and "they who proclaim a right to not exist makes it cease to exist only for themselves".

All I can say is that to me, direct rejection of those principles is rejection of someone's own personhood.

If you would reject someone from a different place from from being as any other human might in the place where you are, you would reject your right to be there as well.

That's how those principles of ethics and consent work!

The only people we can justify ejecting are those who would eject others when they come, who would invade and pillage.

But my friend R wasn't invading and pillaging. He was washing dishes for a restaurant downtown, and taking the time to tutor the younger employees in their Spanish.

Again, the only people who reject these principles are those who would subject the world to a violation of consent at their hands.

This is the entire basis behind "love your neighbor as yourself", so that you TREAT them as yourself in your logic of how to treat them, so that you treat them as having as much justification to refuse as you would demand for yourself.

It feels like every other time I post, I lay that out and every time Emily comments on it, she rejects it as insanity, and every time she does all I can get from it is "I want to violate consent how dare you tell me not to!"

 

[Toni]

What I would say in response to Jahryn’s post above is that yes, I whole heartedly believe that we should treat others as we would want to fe treated ourselves is this:

There are a whole lot of people out there who do not love themselves, who seek to fill empty places in their souls with endless amounts of stuff which can never fill those empty holes. The inability to fill those holes makes people sad and hurt and angry. They are trying so hard! And not getting closer! It cannot be their own fault: they are working so hard! So it must be someone else’s fault! Not the bright shiny happy rich powerful beautiful people: Obviously they know how to live and don’t need to steal from poor, pitiful me. So I must despise those who deserve it: those who look different, who are poor so they must not be hardworking like me. All of those people pouring over the borders! They are here to steal my job, my money, my opportunities. They want to marry my kids! Pollute my blood! Ruin My chances at the Good Life. It’s THEIR fault!

Much easier to beat up on the poor and powerless than it is to challenge a system that favors the wealthy and gives them so much power. Our country was built on the foundation that we are all equal under the law, even if we did exclude women and non-white men from the ‘all’ initially. Gradually we started to recognize that we were excluding people who deserved the same rights. Not enough and not fast enough, but progress was being made. Somewhere along the way we began to worship money and power and those who have it.

We need to stop that shit. No one is above the law.

 

[Elixir]

Hire them. But use e-verify or the feds will be crawling all over you.

They are here to steal my job, my money, my opportunities. They want to marry my kids!

You want the opportunity to marry your kids?

 

[bilby]

I take issue with the very notion that there is an “immigration issue” unless one is speaking of this:
View attachment 53705
That issue even says it’s an issue, right on it.
And it’s exactly what terrifies the promoters of “immigration issues”.

Whoever the hell “they” (immigrants) are, their record is better than ours when it comes to lawful behavior.

But I LIKE that face! It to me seems more roundly and completely human than the alien angles and shapes one sees in the faces of the ultra-wealthy.

Actually, that face is much prettier but as far as coloring goes: it could be me in my youth. My son’s hair is even darker, as is my granddaughter’s. We most closely resemble my father and my grandmother whose roots were primarily Welsh.

The Trump cult moneyed class is so full of latex that it boggles the imagination that anyone considers that look to be attractive

IKR? It's such a pretty face.

It's a well known phenomenon that faces made by computer "averaging" of many faces tend to be rated as highly attractive.

This is likely because the averaging process makes them highly symmetrical.

 

[ZiprHead]

I take issue with the very notion that there is an “immigration issue” unless one is speaking of this:
View attachment 53705
That issue even says it’s an issue, right on it.
And it’s exactly what terrifies the promoters of “immigration issues”.

Whoever the hell “they” (immigrants) are, their record is better than ours when it comes to lawful behavior.

But I LIKE that face! It to me seems more roundly and completely human than the alien angles and shapes one sees in the faces of the ultra-wealthy.

Actually, that face is much prettier but as far as coloring goes: it could be me in my youth. My son’s hair is even darker, as is my granddaughter’s. We most closely resemble my father and my grandmother whose roots were primarily Welsh.

The Trump cult moneyed class is so full of latex that it boggles the imagination that anyone considers that look to be attractive

IKR? It's such a pretty face.

It's a well known phenomenon that faces made by computer "averaging" of many faces tend to be rated as highly attractive.

This is likely because the averaging process makes them highly symmetrical.

Yes. Symmetry is a big factor in the emotional perception of beauty.

 

[scombrid]

Look, I think having the same rules regarding proof of citizenship and identification for voting in all states is a good idea. I get that there aren't a ton of illegal people voting, but it continues to be a political talking point, and it continues to reduce trust in our elections.

Disinformation is reducing trust in our elections. Why aren’t the GOP and its media promoting accurate information?

I'm perfectly happy to discuss ways to facilitate people getting proof of their citizenship if it's lost, bearing the cost to initiate the process via taxes, and making sure there are good systems in place when people move or change names or whatever else. But can we at least discuss solutions instead of people just opposing it out of hand?

The GOP isn’t in discussions. The opposition is to their SAVE action and the implicit effect of that action.

Also, I didn't point it out earlier but there is no such thing as illegal people. It is not illegal to be a person, to exist.

To me this shows more to me that some folks might somewhere deep down WISH they could make some other kinds of folks "illegal".

To me, the only behavior that justifies being declared an illegal person is declaring other sorts of folks, any other sort of person, "illegal" on the foundation of "do not do unto others as you would not have them do to you", and "they who proclaim a right to not exist makes it cease to exist only for themselves".

Why do you think that engaging in intentionally misleading use of language gets you a win? This is an absolutely stupid abuse of words. The only people you convince with this "it's not illegal to be a person" are stupid people.

I ask again. If the intent of the Save Act is to restore trust in our elections, why aren’t the GOP and its media promoting disinformation that undermines trust? Why is the effect of the Save Act to disenfranchise people and further undermine trust?

You wrote that you support government support for people to get extra documents above and beyond Real ID, passports, etc… so they can comply with the Save Act. Can you point to any GOP support for or discussions of such actions?

 

[Elixir]

The only people you convince with this "it's not illegal to be a person" are stupid people.

They’re the ones who need convincing.

 

[Toni]

Hire them. But use e-verify or the feds will be crawling all over you.

They are here to steal my job, my money, my opportunities. They want to marry my kids!

You want the opportunity to marry your kids?

You know: make my grandchildren mutts? Defile my daughter with their non-Aryan body?

( hopefully obvious that is NOT what I think or feel but saying it just in case…)

 

[Jarhyn]

Hire them. But use e-verify or the feds will be crawling all over you.

They are here to steal my job, my money, my opportunities. They want to marry my kids!

You want the opportunity to marry your kids?

You know: make my grandchildren mutts? Defile my daughter with their non-Aryan body?

( hopefully obvious that is NOT what I think or feel but saying it just in case…)

For the record, /s says that last parenthetical bit much more succinctly.

 

[unapologetic]

Sure... but your trust in them has lessened, has it not?

Did I stutter?
Because Rump and the Repugs are fucking with elections.

I think I've said this several times already, but it's less about how much fraud has already happened, than it is about 1) closing CREATING loopholes that could be exploited in the future and 2) getting politicians to stfu about it so we can move on with our lives RIG elections and not have to hear about it anymore.

Fixed it for you.

I liken it to having a lock on my house. Sure, I live in a pretty safe area. Sure, I'm not aware of any house within about a 5 mile radius of my location having been broken into within the last 10 years. Yes, the likelihood of someone breaking into my house is extremely small. And yes, getting a new lock has a cost in terms of my time and the lock itself.

It's more like internet safty.
Having a unique strong password for each app, is a good idea for security. But just increases the chances of locking myself out.

The only people we can justify ejecting are those who would eject others when they come

Words I live by.

It's a well known phenomenon that faces made by computer "averaging" of many faces tend to be rated as highly attractive.

As with real people. The average is prefered. The outliers are precieved as 'ugly'.

 

[scombrid]

I liken it to having a lock on my house. Sure, I live in a pretty safe area. Sure, I'm not aware of any house within about a 5 mile radius of my location having been broken into within the last 10 years. Yes, the likelihood of someone breaking into my house is extremely small. And yes, getting a new lock has a cost in terms of my time and the lock itself.

But it's still a good idea to replace my broken front door lock, and I think it's stupid for anyone to try to argue against it on the basis that it's unlikely to happen and getting a lock costs time and money and is an inconvenience.

You and the GOP are asking people who already have working locks to buy a fancy security system. But you are only asking this of a certain class of people. And you are doing this with a particular effect without providing mitigation for the effect/cost.

There are some arenas where conservatives are very opposed to regulatory takings from people engaged in lawful behavior. This is not the case here.

 

[Elixir]

Hire them. But use e-verify or the feds will be crawling all over you.

They are here to steal my job, my money, my opportunities. They want to marry my kids!

You want the opportunity to marry your kids?

You know: make my grandchildren mutts? Defile my daughter with their non-Aryan body?

( hopefully obvious that is NOT what I think or feel but saying it just in case…)

For the record, /s says that last parenthetical bit much more succinctly.

FWIW, I immediate accepted that Toni’s response was offered in like spirit to that to which she responded. But agree that /s is higher value per electron.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why do you think that engaging in intentionally misleading use of language gets you a win? This is an absolutely stupid abuse of words. The only people you convince with this "it's not illegal to be a person" are stupid people.

It is not illegal to be a person. That is reality. It may be illegal to in a country that does not make anyone an "illegal". The intentional misuse of language is to call undocumented aliens "illegals".

Yes, it is accepted by nativists, white nationalists, racists, their dupes and their enablers, but that does not make any less of a misuse of the word. And it is done either for political purposes or for stupid reasons.

This is why it's stupid, LD. Everybody knows that it's shorthand for "illegal aliens". Absolutely NOBODY has EVER thought that it implies that being a person is illegal.

So to 1) intentionally misconstrue what one KNOWS to be meant so that 2) one can erect an argument against it... is extraordinarily transparent bad faith. It convinces nobody, it accomplishes nothing. It lets the few people who insist on parroting "it's not illegal to be a person" feel like they're winning because they get back-slaps and high-fives from other people who do the same silly thing. And everyone else merely bites their tongues and silently acknowledges that the entire premise is idiotic.

It's the same for the idiots going on about "All Lives Matter". Like, no shit - we know that, everyone knows that, and absolutely nobody anywhere ever though that BLM implied that anyone who wasn't black didn't matter.

It's absolutely pointless virtue signaling via sloganeering.

 

[Emily Lake]

Irony meter definitely broke with you criticizing another poster for ‘intentionally misleading use of language.’

There is no such thing as an illegal person. If you wish to be taken seriously in your arguments, you might be a little more thoughtful in the language you use.

Sure sure, and ALL Lives matter too, amirite?

Alternatively, you can use that squishy gray mass between your ears and employ an understanding of context and shorthand and stop playing games that LITERALLY EVERYONE knows is nothing but a rhetorical game.

 

[Emily Lake]

You know, it's interesting insofar as mutts tend to be more intelligent, physiologically robust, and have more filled-out traits and personalities.

Dude, did you just call brown people dogs? WTAF?

 

[Emily Lake]

The only people you convince with this "it's not illegal to be a person" are stupid people.

They’re the ones who need convincing.

So convincing them with disingenuous propaganda is something you're proud of?

 

[Emily Lake]

I liken it to having a lock on my house. Sure, I live in a pretty safe area. Sure, I'm not aware of any house within about a 5 mile radius of my location having been broken into within the last 10 years. Yes, the likelihood of someone breaking into my house is extremely small. And yes, getting a new lock has a cost in terms of my time and the lock itself.

But it's still a good idea to replace my broken front door lock, and I think it's stupid for anyone to try to argue against it on the basis that it's unlikely to happen and getting a lock costs time and money and is an inconvenience.

You and the GOP are asking people who already have working locks to buy a fancy security system. But you are only asking this of a certain class of people. And you are doing this with a particular effect without providing mitigation for the effect/cost.

That certain class of people being us citizens.

And I will happily support efforts to defray the costs and facilitate the change over.

 

[Jarhyn]

You know, it's interesting insofar as mutts tend to be more intelligent, physiologically robust, and have more filled-out traits and personalities.

Dude, did you just call brown people dogs? WTAF?

Wow, the pearl clutching purposeful misinterpretation is strong with this one.

No Emily, I didn't.

I compared humans to dogs. All of us.

But I know a few humans whose actions ala bark-bark-barking stupidly have me thinking of a much more direct and individual comparison.