Court again blocks Obama's plan to protect undocumented migrants

[fromderinside]

Speaking of smelling slat of reality I'm thinking about a couple recent 5-4 votes by USSC.

 

[KeepTalking]

No, as with all language, the meaning and implication of words is determined by the context and the other words used with it. ...

Of course, technically, they are also illegal migrants but that is no more accurate or valid a label than undocumented migrant. Your real issue is that you don't have rational arguments, so you want to use as emotionally charged language as possible to stir up anger and fear. Thus, you put forth objectively false analogies to try an disparage people from using factual but non-emotionally charged language.

But then, we know what the porous border, amnesty cheerleading, import more poverty and voting Democrats lobby is really up to, don't we?

I don't, so why don't you enlighten me?

 

[ronburgundy]

Nice try, old chap.

It wasn't just a try, it was a successful decimation of your objectively invalid analogies, and exposure of your aversion to language that simply conveys the accurate facts because all you have on your side is reactionary fear-mongering.

 

[whichphilosophy]

All countries need to have border controls to regulate what goes in and out. Undocumented migrants is a weasel word for illegal immigrants. Amnesties and special recognition of illegal immigrants will encourage more to pour in over the borders. This could include escaped criminals.

 

[bilby]

'Illegal immigrant' is just as much a loaded phrase as 'undocumented migrant' - both are intended to normalise the speaker's attitude, and to make their opponent's position seem less reasonable. Goose sauce is gander sauce.

 

[maxparrish]

But then, we know what the porous border, amnesty cheerleading, import more poverty and voting Democrats lobby is really up to, don't we?

I don't, so why don't you enlighten me?

Oh come now, I am sure you can deduce it from my sentence. It is self-evident - the progressive/liberal Democratic partisans wish to import lots of new and impoverished supplicants in order to increase those on the spoils system and therefore increase Democratic voting power. The paradigm of the left is not that complicated:

1) Foster group identity and group grievances, around race, gender, LGBT, teachers, academics, and 'the poor'.
2) Promise to loot from the evil "other"s the private market jobs, businesses, earnings and savings... from "them", the evil and privilaged white, male, rich, or actual producers.
3) Promise to divvy up the spoils to their voting blocks.

You can't have a one-party, social-welfare nanny state unless you have lots in the permanent underclass of the beholden; and a good way to keep and expand power is in half-hearted border enforcement, chain migration, and amnesty for illegals.

 

[maxparrish]

'Illegal immigrant' is just as much a loaded phrase as 'undocumented migrant' - both are intended to normalise the speaker's attitude, and to make their opponent's position seem less reasonable. Goose sauce is gander sauce.

Yes...and no. Both terms convey an aspect of reality. However, one term conveys that the migration is an unauthorized and illegal act; the other conveys the alien is merely lacking in documents without explanation.

But I can compromise - how about we call them undocumented illegal aliens. They are not all migrants (many only want to get temporary work), some are migratory (back and forth), some are workers, some are spongers, BUT ALL are aliens (foreign citizens).

 

[Guyt]

Why inform the police, I thought being undocumented was merely a lack of having a useless piece of paper...like "undocumented migrants".

undocumented is not the same as unqualified.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KeepTalking]

I don't, so why don't you enlighten me?

Oh come now, I am sure you can deduce it from my sentence. It is self-evident - the progressive/liberal Democratic partisans wish to import lots of new and impoverished supplicants in order to increase those on the spoils system and therefore increase Democratic voting power. The paradigm of the left is not that complicated:

I'm on the left. I identify as a progressive and liberal, though not a Democrat, and I can tell you that my paradigm has nothing to do with awarding spoils, or increasing Democratic voting power. I do think that more people should vote, but I would like to have them vote their conscience, and have their vote actually mean something. I will note that Republican efforts to disenfranchise voters, and rig the electoral map in their favor is much more onerous to me (as it should be to anyone who values the right to vote) than what you envision to be the "paradigm of the left", even if I did concede that the majority of the left holds that paradigm (and I don't concede that).

1) Foster group identity and group grievances, around race, gender, LGBT, teachers, academics, and 'the poor'.

Most of the things you mention above have absolutely noting to do with immigrants (legal, illegal, undocumented, or otherwise). But, when it comes to grievances, making those grievances heard is exactly what political parties in a nominally democratic system should be doing. The Republican party champions your grievances all day long, and the group you are identified with has the power to make their own voice heard with considerable amplification, why shouldn't the Democrats do that for those who belong to smaller groups, with less power?

2) Promise to loot from the evil "other"s the private market jobs, businesses, earnings and savings... from "them", the evil and privilaged white, male, rich, or actual producers.

Taxation and providing for the welfare of those in need is not loot. Your side wants taxation as well, they just want to not pay any taxes themselves, and to funnel the taxes that are paid into their own pockets. I am a privileged white male with an upper middle class income, and I can tell you that I prefer my taxes to go to help people who need it, rather than subsidizing oil companies, and producing more bombs, and the billion dollar jets that drop them.

3) Promise to divvy up the spoils to their voting blocks.

You can't have a one-party, social-welfare nanny state unless you have lots in the permanent underclass of the beholden;

I certainly don't want a one-party state, and would prefer several more viable parties to choose from. How many on the right do you know that share this view?

and a good way to keep and expand power is in half-hearted border enforcement, chain migration, and amnesty for illegals.

Any perceived lack of border enforcement, or amnesty, cannot provide more votes if those coming across the border cannot vote. As your ilk is proving, the far better way to consolidate and keep your power is to disenfranchise voters who are not privileged white males, rig the vote when they do allow others to vote, and rig the electoral map in their favor.