Right or 'Alt-Right'?

[Cunt]

Use whatever language makes you feel good, but YOU conflated the group 'law-abiding immigrants' with 'criminal immigrants'.

I understand you think the language is inflammatory, but if you don't want to offer better language, it's going to look like you found the facts themselves 'inflammatory', rather than the rhetoric.

[Sean Hayden]

No, I really didn't. I do expect something from people reading the posts, maybe too much. I'll try to be clearer in the future.

[Cunt]

When you say 'a nation of immigrants', you are describing those who lawfully built the US. When you conflate that group with people who are in the country illegally, it is obviously either a mistake, or you are motivated to blur that line deliberately.

Which is it?

[Seabass]

I think this is coming through a lens that says Barack Obama as "center right." If Obama is center right, how far right is a conservative Republican, lol.

What will it take to get it through your thick skull that YOU are the one with the distorted view of the political spectrum. In no sane country would Trump be considered "moderate". You think he's moderate because the steady diet of far-right disinformation you've been consuming has impaired your ability to distinguish myth from reality.

[Seabass]

trump is anything but a moderate, and his supporters are far right

You might want to check your math (or maybe it's your language).

I would say 'his supporters' are those who honestly voted, and maybe a few others who clearly supported him in other ways.

If that group is 'far right', then the majority of people have to be 'far right', since he got half the votes. It kind of makes the definition a bit meaningless, when it is applied to more than half a population.

US population: 325 million. Trump voters: 63 million. Moreover, the US political spectrum is shifted significantly to the right in comparison to that of first world countries. His supporters are far-right.

[Sean Hayden]

When you say 'a nation of immigrants', you are describing those who lawfully built the US. When you conflate that group with people who are in the country illegally, it is obviously either a mistake, or you are motivated to blur that line deliberately.

Which is it?

It's said in the context of worrying about rhetoric and a lack of nuance which causes racists to feel empowered to blame brown people regardless of their legal status. Therefore, it's neither an inappropriate conflation or purposeful manipulation on my part.

I don't think it's too much to ask of you to imagine how rhetoric like that coming from Trump and co can encourage the racists who don't care about your right to be here or not.

[Cunt]

trump is anything but a moderate, and his supporters are far right

You might want to check your math (or maybe it's your language).

I would say 'his supporters' are those who honestly voted, and maybe a few others who clearly supported him in other ways.

If that group is 'far right', then the majority of people have to be 'far right', since he got half the votes. It kind of makes the definition a bit meaningless, when it is applied to more than half a population.

US population: 325 million. Trump voters: 63 million. Moreover, the US political spectrum is shifted significantly to the right in comparison to that of first world countries. His supporters are far-right.

I was only counting the voters, because the overall population hasn't been polled about their views in the same clear way.

I get it though, he only has half the voters, not half the population. So out of the pool 'voters', alt-right is over 50%, is that what you are saying?

[Cunt]

When you say 'a nation of immigrants', you are describing those who lawfully built the US. When you conflate that group with people who are in the country illegally, it is obviously either a mistake, or you are motivated to blur that line deliberately.

Which is it?

It's said in the context of worrying about rhetoric and a lack of nuance which causes racists to feel empowered to blame brown people regardless of their legal status. Therefore, it's neither an inappropriate conflation or purposeful manipulation on my part.

I don't think it's too much to ask of you to imagine how rhetoric like that coming from Trump and co can encourage the racists who don't care about your right to be here or not.

Sure. Just like Democrats can spew rhetoric which can encourage the fascists who don't care about your right to eat in a restaurant, as a political opponent.

But even a correctly waving flag can causes racists to feel empowered. Fuck, the breeze without the flag can stir some folks up.

You still seem to be resistant to the idea that criminals are different. That has nothing to do with 'lack of nuance', it is simply your deliberate effort to avoid looking rationally at the issue.

Should immigration law be enforced? Or would you rather not because it might hurt some of those 'brown people'?

[Sean Hayden]

You don't come across as having a good grasp of the situation. It is unreasonable to compare the threat presented by racial tensions in the US to angry protesters inconveniencing politicians who are trying to enjoy a meal. It also doesn't do you any good to point out that racists are nasty people. I know that. But they are nasty people who shouldn't feel welcomed by major political parties.


I'm afraid you do lack nuance. You see, even when discussing criminals we need to be careful not to lump them all together. To simply dismiss someone because they are a criminal is not very useful. What kind of criminal? What law did they break? Why did they break that law? Are they likely to break other laws? Then, of course, you have to consider the nature of the laws themselves.

You can't just call people criminals and then justify whatever it is that you want to see done to them. It doesn't work like that here, not for me, and not for them.

[Cunt]

And YOU can't just answer...

Look, the definition of 'criminal' is one who is guilty of a crime. (for our purposes today)

If they are, or would be convicted of being an 'undocumented immigrant', then they are criminals.

It isn't that I hate them, or wish them ill. I have honestly helped people in difficult immigration situations. I would again. If a crimmigrant was in my home, scared to look the cops in the eye at my door, the cops wouldn't be coming in. Is that clear enough?

I don't hate them because they are criminals, but they ARE criminals. I'm not dismissing them because they are criminals, but I won't forget how that creates vulnerabilities in them, opportunities for all kinds of exploitation. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if criminals had poorer outcomes regarding haircut quality...it really creeps into every aspect of their lives. Ruinous to be a criminal. When is the last time you tried to live without a bank, for example? Can you imagine it, to try to wrap your head around how different life might be for a criminal?

You said don't lump them all together. Sounds pretty stupid to me. The criminals I know can be lumped together pretty regularly in certain ways. Their desire to not interact with the police is pretty consistent, for example. I wonder if labour standards outcomes are different for criminals...

Want me to vote for allowing more legal immigrants? I'm in. We got LOTS of roads to pay for in Canada, and not nearly enough users.

Want me to vote to allow line-jumpers priority over lawful applicants, I won't. (I doubt we differ here either)

If you wont answer my question, I have to wonder if it makes you uncomfortable because your answer will make this problem a bit more practical, and less philosophical.

Should immigration law be enforced?

[Sean Hayden]

If I say my problem is with Trump and co rhetoric about this issue and that we should be mindful of our history as immigrants when talking about applying immigration law, do you think that I've answered your question already?

Yep, being a criminal sucks. Being treated as a serious criminal sucks even more e.g. the cops are talking to your friends if they show up with their guns drawn.

[Hermit]

I'm afraid you do lack nuance. You see, even when discussing criminals we need to be careful not to lump them all together.

Look, the definition of 'criminal' is one who is guilty of a crime. (for our purposes today)

Keep digging. Oh. You just did. As you were.

What are "our" purposes today? What are you trying to accomplish with your insistence on not differentiating between different sorts of criminals?

I read that in some states of the US people get a criminal conviction for smoking pot. Do you think it is useful to make no distinction between those criminals and people who earn their status of criminal by getting caught selling crack? Does it make sense to simply say: "Both are criminals. No point in defining them any further."?

[pErvinalia]

I have honestly helped people in difficult immigration situations. I would again. If a crimmigrant was in my home, scared to look the cops in the eye at my door, the cops wouldn't be coming in. Is that clear enough?

What's clear is that using a ridiculous made up term - made up to satisfy your need to paint illegal immigrants in a worse light - shows how it's likely bullshit that you helped anyone in that situation, and likely bullshit that you ever would.

[Cunt]

If I say my problem is with Trump and co rhetoric about this issue and that we should be mindful of our history as immigrants when talking about applying immigration law, do you think that I've answered your question already?

So you do think immigration law should be enforced, is that right?

Why is it so hard to get you to say so clearly?

Is it possibly because, no matter how that law is enforced, there will be families torn apart?

Yep, being a criminal sucks. Being treated as a serious criminal sucks even more e.g. the cops are talking to your friends if they show up with their guns drawn.

Been approached by cops with their guns drawn. It kind of makes it easy to go on thinking of them as 'the enemy'.

I'm afraid you do lack nuance. You see, even when discussing criminals we need to be careful not to lump them all together.

Look, the definition of 'criminal' is one who is guilty of a crime. (for our purposes today)

Keep digging. Oh. You just did. As you were.

What are "our" purposes today? What are you trying to accomplish with your insistence on not differentiating between different sorts of criminals?

No, the opposite - that every criminal is a criminal - regardless of how nice they might be otherwise.

I read that in some states of the US people get a criminal conviction for smoking pot. Do you think it is useful to make no distinction between those criminals and people who earn their status of criminal by getting caught selling crack? Does it make sense to simply say: "Both are criminals. No point in defining them any further."?

Well, I never said that, I simply said they were criminals, and a different group than 'immigrants'.

I also never said there is no point in defining them any further. All I am saying is that they are criminals, and that lumping them in with lawful immigrants is a few ways wrong.

Pot is a fine example, I smoke it. In my country it is lawful. 2 weeks ago, I was a criminal. This week, I am not. The difference is clear, and real. Same guy, same house, same bloody papers, but the law is different.

This week, I don't have to fear a threat to call the cops. Last month, I would have plenty of reason to fear such.

Do you get it? If you lump immigrants and illegals together, you are being an asshole. They aren't the same, legally.

[Hermit]

I'm afraid you do lack nuance. You see, even when discussing criminals we need to be careful not to lump them all together.

Look, the definition of 'criminal' is one who is guilty of a crime. (for our purposes today)

Keep digging. Oh. You just did. As you were.

What are "our" purposes today? What are you trying to accomplish with your insistence on not differentiating between different sorts of criminals?

No, the opposite - that every criminal is a criminal - regardless of how nice they might be otherwise.