Explain the liberal thought process on Illegal Aliens

[superpunch]

I don't understand why they think illegal aliens shouldn't be deported. Why is anyone that wants to do that evil and racist?

If I went on vacation to Japan and decided to just live there forever, shouldn't Japan deport me after I overstay my 3 month tourist visa? I don't think that makes Japan evil or racist. Do you? Why?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Your understanding of the position is wrong (and silly). So obviously no one will explain the process to get to that fake position.

Ed: Excluding other people who want to fight strawmen.

 

[lecter]

lower consumer prices plus low-IQ whites often don't want to do hard manual labor these days thanks to welfare checks

 

[Jim Bob]

Liberals have gone off the deep end on this issue today. It shouldn't even be a controversial issue like they have made it.

 

[KantoTerror]

"their human beings...regardless weather they leech out on our resources, don't pay tax....take their hard earn dollars back on the other side of the border...their human beings..."

 

[nac386]

Your understanding of the position is wrong (and silly). So obviously no one will explain the process to get to that fake position.

Ed: Excluding other people who want to fight strawmen.

Just quoting this for the people who skipped it the first time.

 

[Cid]

"their human beings...regardless weather they leech out on our resources, don't pay tax....take their hard earn dollars back on the other side of the border...their human beings..."

They own human beings?

Pretty sure that's illegal bro.

 

[superpunch]

Your understanding of the position is wrong (and silly). So obviously no one will explain the process to get to that fake position.

Ed: Excluding other people who want to fight strawmen.

Very enlightening. All you did was name-calling, a common tactic of liberals and 5 year old kids.

From here, it probably turns into a shit show and then you walk away smug claiming that you won and I'm stupid because I can't even present a rational argument and all I can do is sling insults.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Very enlightening. All you did was name-calling, a common tactic of liberals and 5 year old kids.

From here, it probably turns into a shit show and then you walk away smug claiming that you won and I'm stupid because I can't even present a rational argument and all I can do is sling insults.

Maybe you should read more carefully and respond less emotionally.

I guess I can try to explain again. The position that you're asking for an explanation of is not actually held by liberals (and, really, you should know that, as it is rather ridiculous) so no liberal will be able to explain the thought process that leads to it.

If you want a serious discussion and to really understand liberal thinking on the issue, you should make an effort to represent the liberal position accurately.

 

[superpunch]

Maybe you should read more carefully and respond less emotionally.

I guess I can try to explain again. The position that you're asking for an explanation of is not actually held by liberals (and, really, you should know that, as it is rather ridiculous) so no liberal will be able to explain the thought process that leads to it.

You didn't present the liberal argument, meaning that you called my position "silly" and stopped the discussion there. It's an underhanded -- intellectual -- method of name-calling. Since it's not obvious, you can use it and then claim that you "won" the discussion at that point.

The thing is, you probably don't even recognize you're doing it. It's trained behavior to avoid the bad feelings that come along with recognizing cognitive dissonance later in our discussion.

I would know -- I used to use it to troll all the time on other forums. It works almost every time against people that don't recognize what you're doing.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You didn't present the liberal argument, meaning that you called my position "silly" and stopped the discussion there.

You asked people to explain "the liberal position" which you then completely, obviously misrepresented. Now you're responding with personal attacks to someone who pointed out the issue with that. Clearly, you're not interested in honest discussion, and the thread itself is a troll. You presented yourself as being curious about what others think, but you're actually just trying to stir up conflict.

Again, if you want to understand liberal thinking on the issue of illegal immigration, you should first make an effort to present liberal positions accurately.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

many liberals on this board have argued for them to stay.....

so not sure how TS is supposedly misrepresenting liberal's views on the manner

Remind me again of the Conservative led sanctuary cities currently in the US?

oh right....

 

[Rod1]

Liberals have gone off the deep end on this issue today. It shouldn't even be a controversial issue like they have made it.

The issue is that when Democrats say they oppose illegal immigration they mean "We should reform the immigration system" when modern Republicans say they oppose illegal immigration they mean "We dont like brown people".

And when Reagan Republicans say "We should reform the immigration system" they get called RINOs by modern Republicans.

You are right, immigration shouldnt be a partisan issue, but it was made so by republicans playing identity politics its the national version of the Southern strategy.

 

[Rod1]

many liberals on this board have argued for them to stay.....

so not sure how TS is supposedly misrepresenting liberal's views on the manner

Remind me again of the Conservative led sanctuary cities currently in the US?

oh right....

Texas is next to California on the sheer number of illegals.

TS misrepresents it, because it claims liberals like illegal immigration. They dont, most in the left, center-left and cente-right support a sensible approach including border security and immigration reform.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Texas is next to California on the sheer number of illegals.

TS misrepresents it, because it claims liberals like illegal immigration. They dont, most in the left, center-left and cente-right support a sensible approach including border security and immigration reform.

where did he say 'like illegal immigration'

'shouldn't be deported' and 'like' them are two wholly different ideas
also why did you bring up texas? it doesn't have sanctuary policies, it's just the biggest landmass state in the contiguous US and shares a MASSIVE border w/ Mexico.....so uh ya

 

[Z28LS1L98]

"their human beings...regardless weather they leech out on our resources, don't pay tax....take their hard earn dollars back on the other side of the border...their human beings..."

It's hard paying taxes when you don't qualify for tax returns, and you get paid 5 bucks a hour killing yourself.
Sanctuary cities is just stupid. It send the wrong message.

 

[Rod1]

where did he say 'like illegal immigration'

'shouldn't be deported' and 'like' them are two wholly different ideas

also why did you bring up texas? it doesn't have sanctuary policies, it's just the biggest landmass state in the contiguous US and shares a MASSIVE border w/ Mexico.....so uh ya

Again most people dont think that nobody should be deported, they just think an easier solution would be a combination of both enforcement and reform.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Again most people dont think that nobody should be deported, they just think an easier solution would be a combination of both enforcement and reform.

to your first point, I guess?

again, who controls sanctuary cities? not like there's only one in the whole US as well

 

[Rod1]

to your first point, I guess?

again, who controls sanctuary cities? not like there's only one in the whole US as well

Sanctuary cities main purpose i think is not to alienate an illegal community to make law enforcement easier isnt?

That being said i dont think most liberals support illegal immigration, they just see it as a better alternative to the fantasy scenario that a minority of the right believes about mass deportations.

 

[Trotsky]

They aren't an economic drain, our economy can use them, our immigration system is fucked and preys on the poor, people sympathize with persons fleeing poverty/violence/persecution/etc., people realize it's economically and politically detrimental to remove productive citizens on the basis of past transgressions made under duress, granting refuge is consistent with the spirit of the country's founding and what allowed it to be the most dominant culture in the world, it would generate billions and cost little to mass-naturalize but would cost billions in both administration and economic loss to deport them all.

I mean, how many explanations or routes of thought do you need? Only an idiot sees the issue as black and white, in which undocumented immigrants/immigration is bad and persons not outright wishing for deportation are bad.