Is it fair to conflate immigration enforcement with xenophobia?

[Kondor3]

It’s worth pointing out that opposition to illegal immigration is often unfairly labeled as anti-immigrant, when in fact many people, including Trump, have consistently said they support legal immigration. As far as I can tell, the conflation of legal and illegal immigration seems to happen for a few reasons. Some on the left use it as a rhetorical strategy. By framing any immigration enforcement as anti-immigrant, they can cast their opponents as xenophobic, regardless of the actual policy details. Others may blur the lines because they view borders as morally arbitrary in general, so the legal distinction doesn’t matter to them. There's also a political advantage in simplifying the debate and evoking emotional responses. In reality, there's a clear difference between welcoming people through a legal process and opposing uncontrolled or undocumented entry. It’s not anti-immigrant to expect people to come legally. That’s a standard every country in the world maintains.

It's the difference between controlled immigration at our pace and for our purposes vs. conceding an invasion-swarm.

 

[Correll]

It's the difference between controlled immigration at our pace and for our purposes vs. conceding an invasion-swarm.

"at our pace" is the crux of the matter.


The family loophole has meant that even legal immigration has been... an invasion swarm since the immigration act of 65.

 

[Mac-7]

"at our pace" is the crux of the matter.


The family loophole has meant that even legal immigration has been... an invasion swarm since the immigration act of 65.

The 1965 law dramatically changed the demographics of immigration

It was anti white to the extreme and the start of the Balkanization of America

Or a modern Tower of Babble if you prefer

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The 1965 law dramatically changed the demographics of immigration

It was anti white to the extreme and the start of the Balkanization of America

Or a modern Tower of Babble if you prefer

No, but it did challenge white supremacism, and you can't have that.

 

[Mac-7]

No, but it did challenge white supremacism, and you can't have that.

America stopped being white supremest before 1965

Thats how the anti white ted kennedy immigration law was passed

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

America stopped being white supremest before 1965

Thats how the anti white ted kennedy immigration law was passed

That is just white nationalist babbling.

You cannot change it. Only 3% of America is illegal, and not all of that is of color.

By 2045, white will not be the leading popular minority.

You can't stop it.

 

[Mac-7]

That is just white nationalist babbling.

You cannot change it. Only 3% of America is illegal, and not all of that is of color.

By 2045, white will not be the leading popular minority.

You can't stop it.

As for white skin color you could be right

Libs have flooded the country with enough non whites to make America off-color

But as long as white culture survives and dominates we will be ok

 

[TemplarKormac]

It’s worth pointing out that opposition to illegal immigration is often unfairly labeled as anti-immigrant, when in fact many people, including Trump, have consistently said they support legal immigration. As far as I can tell, the conflation of legal and illegal immigration seems to happen for a few reasons. Some on the left use it as a rhetorical strategy. By framing any immigration enforcement as anti-immigrant, they can cast their opponents as xenophobic, regardless of the actual policy details. Others may blur the lines because they view borders as morally arbitrary in general, so the legal distinction doesn’t matter to them. There's also a political advantage in simplifying the debate and evoking emotional responses. In reality, there's a clear difference between welcoming people through a legal process and opposing uncontrolled or undocumented entry. It’s not anti-immigrant to expect people to come legally. That’s a standard every country in the world maintains.

No.

If I have to explain later, I will. But the flat answer is no.

 

[Midnight FM]

It’s worth pointing out that opposition to illegal immigration is often unfairly labeled as anti-immigrant, when in fact many people, including Trump, have consistently said they support legal immigration. As far as I can tell, the conflation of legal and illegal immigration seems to happen for a few reasons. Some on the left use it as a rhetorical strategy. By framing any immigration enforcement as anti-immigrant, they can cast their opponents as xenophobic, regardless of the actual policy details. Others may blur the lines because they view borders as morally arbitrary in general, so the legal distinction doesn’t matter to them. There's also a political advantage in simplifying the debate and evoking emotional responses. In reality, there's a clear difference between welcoming people through a legal process and opposing uncontrolled or undocumented entry. It’s not anti-immigrant to expect people to come legally. That’s a standard every country in the world maintains.

Xenophobic people such as Neo-Nazis will tend to support immigration enforcement simply because they are racist or xenophobic. I'll say that much. This is similar to xenophobic people supporting the border wall without being educated on what the wall really consists of or whether or not it will actually work.

 

[Kondor3]

By 2045, white will not be the leading popular minority.

You can't stop it.

Sounds like you're relishing the prospect and can't wait... sounds like you have a vested interesting in seeing that happen...

 

[Mac1958]

Proper, efficient, legal immigration enforcement is absolutely NOT xenophobia. That's intellectually lazy, not to mention being untrue. We're supposed to be a country of LAWS (present White House resident notwithstanding).

As with most things in America nowadays, the question/problem is not what you're trying to accomplish. The goal can be perfectly reasonable and perfectly defensible. The question/problem is THE WAY YOU'RE GOING ABOUT TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IT. As I point out in my sig. And that rule pertains to BOTH ends of the political spectrum. Regularly.

For some reason, ideologues just REFUSE to carefully and honestly consider the negative ramifications and pushback that will happen when they do things. They carry a simplistic, myopic worldview into damn near everything they try. They don't LOOK BOTH WAYS before crossing the street. That's one of the primary dangers of being consumed by an ideology.

 

[Oswald Was Innocent]

Xenophobic people such as Neo-Nazis will tend to support immigration enforcement simply because they are racist or xenophobic. I'll say that much. This is similar to xenophobic people supporting the border wall without being educated on what the wall really consists of or whether or not it will actually work.

America was meant to be and always should be a White nation.

 

[Mac1958]

America was meant to be and always should be a White nation.

How do you propose the country gets from here to there?

 

[candycorn]

Is it fair to conflate immigration enforcement with xenophobia?​

yes

 

[Oswald Was Innocent]

How do you propose the country gets from here to there?

Through a massive purge of brown third worlders. Also making it illegal again for interracial marriages between blacks and Whites..

 

[Mac1958]

Through a massive purge of brown third worlders. Also making it illegal again for interracial marriages between blacks and Whites..

Would you purge brown third worlders who are American citizens?

 

[Midnight FM]

America was meant to be and always should be a White nation.

Nope. America was founded on humanistic principles, and these are what should guide us. Race should take a back seat to humanistic ideals such as all men being created equal.

On the same note, there's not a snowball's chance in hell that people are going to be deported solely for being non-white, so that fantasy can be confined to the likes of Stormfront. If you want to go there, then the continent of America was originally inhabited by indigenous people, so if whites don't like it, they could always move back to Europe, I suppose.

 

[Oswald Was Innocent]

Nope.

Oh yes it was. The founders made it clear in the first legislation pertaining to immigration passed by the 1st Congress.

 

[Midnight FM]

Oh yes it was. The founders made it clear in the first legislation pertaining to immigration passed by the 1st Congress.

The founders also owned slaves and wore wigs. So naturally, we don't want to do everything they did. They created a system founded on humanistic principles, such as that of all men being created equal. And these should be what guide us rather than race.

 

[Oswald Was Innocent]

The founders also owned slaves and wore wigs. So naturally, we don't want to do everything they did. They created a system founded on humanistic principles, such as that of all men being created equal. And these should be what guide us rather than race.

No, blacks were never meant to be citizens. Our founders were wise. Even Lincoln wanted to deport them in his second term. Only Whites were to be citizens of the new nation. Also, so what if they owned negro slaves. And one other thing, blacks are not equal to White people. They never have been. Even Lincoln stated such.