Is it racist to oppose illegal immigrants?
-
Why do you oppose them?
- The crime they don't bring?
- Economic losses they don't cause to citizen workers?
- Economic gains to domestic businesses?
- The contributions to social security & medicare they don't get back?
- Because they're not white?
- Because outsiders are convenient scapegoats for politicians to blame & flex power?
It's important to pin down clear, substantiated reasons.
From The Business of Migrant Detention covering the history of anti-immigration policies & its disparate treatment of white & brown immigrants
ARABLOUEI: OK. If federal government's spending all this money to detain and then deport people and a lot of times they're coming back in the country, and it's not actually achieving anything economically in terms of supporting American workers and it's actually hurting American companies, why? Like, why are they doing this if there's no material benefit to the economy or to protecting workers?
NOFIL: To me, it is a core question of sort of who is an American. Immigration detention's roots are in this moment that is so blatantly racist, that sort of - you know, the Chinese Exclusion Act pulls no punches about what it is doing. It is targeted to a specific group of people. But that is where we get the legal precedents that undergird this entire system today. It is a system that has only really ever, to my opinion, receded. Immigration detention is only really ever rolled back when it is seen as threatening whiteness. And it is a system that has, you know, continually expanded and gained public support by, you know, targeting racialized people, by targeting people who Americans are encouraged to imagine as maybe kind of criminal anyway, right? It is doing political work, and it is doing work that I think is, like, really revealing about how the nation sees itself.
look at canada
-
This post did not contain any content.
It's not racist to take issur with illegal immigration.
It's just not right to oppose the immigrants as people, or say that their situation is the result of some moral failing. These people make the best decisions for themselves and their families.
It becomes racist when you start attributing characteristics or behaviors to their race as fundamental attributes.
-
Where are you coming from with "the reason they have to be illegal is racist"? If you wouldn't mind clarifying.
Kind of like how a lot of anti-poor laws in the USA were targeting former slaves without actually saying it, and poor-white people were collateral damage.
Why would they be migrating illegally when migrating legally would clearly be better for them?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Short answer yes with an if. The long answer is no with a but.
I'd say it's racist if someone is complaining about illegal immigrants alongside a general contempt of 'foreigners' and not paying attention to the details of why it's illegal for them to migrate the way they did and what options are available for legal migration.
It's not racist to be opposed to those who are in violation of the law, as that is not a racial or ethnic classification. But it is important to be inquisitive as to why the law is the way that it is, and be willing to consider the possibility that just because something is against the law does not mean that it should be. Law has long been used as a tool of systemic oppression and racism, as well as many other horrific abuses inflicted on people.
-
How is describing the size of a boat racist
wrote last edited by [email protected]Like I said, I don’t know your euphemisms and usage, but …..
It’s racist when we mean those people. They’re all criminals and druggies and queue jumpers. And you know they’re mostly x. Not like the good ones from Scandinavia that fly in. Those are not the problem.
It reminds me of a term we have here: wetbacks. There are still some idiots who try to claim it’s just descriptive of people who swam across the rio grande river. But we all know it’s those people from south of the border with the darker skin. They’re all illegal, drug smugglers, will rob and rape and steal our jobs. And somehow use up our healthcare and social security that they can’t collect. Even if there was a chance it was descriptive in the beginning, it’s clearly racist and it’s clearly exploited by our Regressives to drive fear and outrage. If there’s anyone who still supports the abuses of our current immigration enforcement thugs it’s because of how successfully that term has been demonized
And this is why allowing people like Charlie Kirk is dangerous. We’re used to saying that people have a right to voice their opinions but the modern world has made it easy to influence millions with the most abhorrent opinions and to escape consequences of voicing them. The modern world rewards with success those who exploit divisiveness, outrage, haired, and we haven’t been able to get past that. He shouldn’t have been shot but in an ideal world would have been shunned and exiled, left alone in ignomy
-
Like I said, I don’t know your euphemisms and usage, but …..
It’s racist when we mean those people. They’re all criminals and druggies and queue jumpers. And you know they’re mostly x. Not like the good ones from Scandinavia that fly in. Those are not the problem.
It reminds me of a term we have here: wetbacks. There are still some idiots who try to claim it’s just descriptive of people who swam across the rio grande river. But we all know it’s those people from south of the border with the darker skin. They’re all illegal, drug smugglers, will rob and rape and steal our jobs. And somehow use up our healthcare and social security that they can’t collect. Even if there was a chance it was descriptive in the beginning, it’s clearly racist and it’s clearly exploited by our Regressives to drive fear and outrage. If there’s anyone who still supports the abuses of our current immigration enforcement thugs it’s because of how successfully that term has been demonized
And this is why allowing people like Charlie Kirk is dangerous. We’re used to saying that people have a right to voice their opinions but the modern world has made it easy to influence millions with the most abhorrent opinions and to escape consequences of voicing them. The modern world rewards with success those who exploit divisiveness, outrage, haired, and we haven’t been able to get past that. He shouldn’t have been shot but in an ideal world would have been shunned and exiled, left alone in ignomy
Difference is that mexico has cartels and stuff. France doesn't. Stop trying to apply your American logic over on us. The Chinese have a term for this. "A frog in a well". Except maybe you lot are more obnoxious than that anyway. Deal with your own problems and stop trying to poke your nose in others, imperialist yank. Your country has caused enough problems on the world stage. A number of weeks ago one of your racist billionaires was trying to meddle with our society by making speeches in London. We don't want anything to do with you lot.
-
Every time I meet someone who opposes illegal immigration but claims to support legal immigration I ask one question. If the law changed so that all immigration was legal, you'd be fine with it, right?
Nobody so far has been fine with it. I conclude that the question of legality is a dodge for people who are embarrassed about their actual motives.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Does unrestricted immigration work?
I'm not aware that any country (that anyone would want to go to, not like a war zone) has completely free immigration. I'd be opposed to having no more borders from one day to the next for the simple reason that it's a big change. One that's worth trialing and working towards, of course, but not something we can yet know will work afaik. Especially if we're the first country doing this and 2 billion people decide the Netherlands would be a fine place to live in (it is!). I'd not be surprised if it turns out we need a lottery kind of system, or maybe an announcement system, at least for those not in mortal danger, so that we can build living spaces ahead of time. Supply and demand is currently such that the only way to afford a house (even for top, idk, ~2% of world incomes) is to have a house so you can sell it at the inflated price, and while immigration is afaik a net positive to a country's wealth and welfare, this effect is offset in time. The housing crisis will pass again, as it always has, but in general the solution should be sustainable and I'm not aware that it's as simple as "be in favor of unrestricted immigration or else you're a racist"
-
So clearly you didn't fully read my comment, so why should I expend the effort typing out a response? It would be a waste if you're just going to read part of it and then ask questions I've already given the answer to.
ask questions I’ve already given the answer to
You have given a vague idealistic vision, not an answer.
ending imperialism and colonialism
And how exactly would that happen? Id like you to elaborate if you have any ideas
-
What. Are. Your. Arguments?
Put them into words. Dont send me a video.
-
Without a one world government that could police people cross border, wouldn't it be all to easy walk in to a country, do a bit crime, and then walk to the next one? Not to mention human trafficking problems if no one was tracked how they travel across countries.
Knowing that the system as it is now is wrong does not make me an expert on how we could prevent issues. But some people being able to "do a bit of crime" easier is probably better than the human rights violations that are occurring now. And even otherwise, open borders doesn't inherently mean nothing with no one checking people. Just means you can freely travel. But also, Europe doesn't seem to have an issue of people popping cross the border to "do a bit of crime" and go home to get off scott free. Because that's not how borders and laws work.
And human trafficking is a problem with the world as it is currently. So that's not stopping anything. And hell, it makes "illegal" immigrants easier targets of this kind of exploitation. Can't really get much help if you're in the country illegally and your family member is kidnapped.
-
Even if the law bars say only pedodiles from entry? Just hung up on the word anyone here. I'm guessing there are some number of people we can all agree should be kept outside of a given sect of people. Even back in the day there would be exile's.
Then if we say some number of people should be bared there would be a "right" way.
I'm not saying immigration policy is good now. Far from it.
Who decides if someone's a pedophile or not? How are you going to track that? Force people to take a test or something? Hell, currently we're in a world where queer people, especially trans people, are called "groomers" and "pedophiles" for the sheer act of being trans. So you call people you don't want to come in pedophiles and then they can't come in. Nope, no trans people allowed because we're all "pedophiles" according to the government.
Okay what, you're going to limit it to people who've been convicted of child sex crimes. Well, then they make the existence of people who they don't like count as sex crimes. Again, as is happening to trans people. Existing in public as yourself is a crime so you're charged and treated the same as a pedophile.
So we've already covered why your logic is completely broken and this idea is stupid. But let's push all of that aside. For the sake of argument, best case scenario, we are only talking about actual genuine pedophiles. Have they committed a crime? Are they in prison? Then they're not crossing any borders since they're incarcerated.
What if they haven't committed a crime yet? Well then we'd have no way of knowing they're a pedophile unless they admitted it themselves. And no these people shouldn't be punished just for having those sexual desires. For one, most people are able to control themselves despite sexual urges. Cases of rapes and sexual assault are the result of power dynamics, not random uncontrollable urges. And two, these people should be given help given this could cause genuine mental distress.
What if they've committed a crime but served their time? Well, what justification is there to stop them? What if they harm another child? Well what if they do it in their own country? That's not going to make a difference. And this also goes into the complex issue that is the prison system and how it's largely useless at doing anything other than containing people as a punishment rather than actually attempting to help reform people.
Anyway no, I don't think there's any justification for restricting any kind of "undesirable" from entering a country. Beyond anything else, it just ends up a loophole to punish any group of people you don't like by branding them as that undesirable. Same for every human right. If it doesn't apply to everyone then it applies to no one.
And if you're a special kind of dumbass who'd say "well what about nazis/the kkk/etc", the answer is that ideologies that are inherently intolerant of other people just for existing do not get the benefit of tolerance themselves.
-
Thanks for a well-written reply. Here's some quick responses:
1... as mentioned the primary costs here come from increased crime which is hard to document. In high trust societies (which social welfare countries usually are) this has a disproportionately negative impact on the economy. Also, in several Scandinavian countries everyone has a right to emergency healthcare, regardless of their immigration status.
2... I believe you're correct when it comes to countries with less social welfare such as the US, however, this isn't the case in countries with robust social welfare systems. As recently as 2023 Denmark assessed the net contribution of migrants and their descendants on the public finances and published the results. The sum total effect of migrants was negative (-19B DKK). Per capita the average Dane had an impact of (22k DKK) per year and the average migrant (-21k DKK). Some migrant/migrant descendant subgroups were better or worse than others (best 52k DKK, worst -109k).
3... Sure, I assume this accounts for other societal costs such as law enforcement and crime?
4... See the response to #2. The taxes don't cover the costs.
Thanks for your response. Your argument is convincing and I have no refutation, I appreciate you taking the time.
The only thing I would say is I bet this is still fixable with policy without having to ban or restrict immigration. But alas, that's a different discussion, and your point that there are valid non racist reasons to criticize immigration is correct. Thanks again!
-
What. Are. Your. Arguments?
Put them into words. Dont send me a video.
You asked for an example
-
Lol, that's for legal migrants
You can apply online for a change to your conditions if your financial circumstances change and you:
- have permission to stay on the basis of your family or private life
- have applied for permission to stay on the basis of your family or private life
- have permission to stay with a close relative with protection status as a child
- hold a British National (Overseas) visa
- have permission granted on any other immigration route and you want to apply on a discretionary basis because your circumstances are particularly compelling
Note the permission thing.
They only let you stay with your family if you're earning at least £29k
-
Thanks for your response. Your argument is convincing and I have no refutation, I appreciate you taking the time.
The only thing I would say is I bet this is still fixable with policy without having to ban or restrict immigration. But alas, that's a different discussion, and your point that there are valid non racist reasons to criticize immigration is correct. Thanks again!
No worries. I think the more interesting discussion that I'd like to have at some point is how a good system for immigration actually looks. It's not a trivial problem to solve and can't be done in isolation either. Societies are systems where everything is interlinked in one way or another.
-
Who decides if someone's a pedophile or not? How are you going to track that? Force people to take a test or something? Hell, currently we're in a world where queer people, especially trans people, are called "groomers" and "pedophiles" for the sheer act of being trans. So you call people you don't want to come in pedophiles and then they can't come in. Nope, no trans people allowed because we're all "pedophiles" according to the government.
Okay what, you're going to limit it to people who've been convicted of child sex crimes. Well, then they make the existence of people who they don't like count as sex crimes. Again, as is happening to trans people. Existing in public as yourself is a crime so you're charged and treated the same as a pedophile.
So we've already covered why your logic is completely broken and this idea is stupid. But let's push all of that aside. For the sake of argument, best case scenario, we are only talking about actual genuine pedophiles. Have they committed a crime? Are they in prison? Then they're not crossing any borders since they're incarcerated.
What if they haven't committed a crime yet? Well then we'd have no way of knowing they're a pedophile unless they admitted it themselves. And no these people shouldn't be punished just for having those sexual desires. For one, most people are able to control themselves despite sexual urges. Cases of rapes and sexual assault are the result of power dynamics, not random uncontrollable urges. And two, these people should be given help given this could cause genuine mental distress.
What if they've committed a crime but served their time? Well, what justification is there to stop them? What if they harm another child? Well what if they do it in their own country? That's not going to make a difference. And this also goes into the complex issue that is the prison system and how it's largely useless at doing anything other than containing people as a punishment rather than actually attempting to help reform people.
Anyway no, I don't think there's any justification for restricting any kind of "undesirable" from entering a country. Beyond anything else, it just ends up a loophole to punish any group of people you don't like by branding them as that undesirable. Same for every human right. If it doesn't apply to everyone then it applies to no one.
And if you're a special kind of dumbass who'd say "well what about nazis/the kkk/etc", the answer is that ideologies that are inherently intolerant of other people just for existing do not get the benefit of tolerance themselves.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Not sure where the vitriol is coming from. Did I do something to personally offend you? I'm guessing you are just not fully comfortable with your ideas.
Force people to take a test or something?
"Would you have sex with this child holds up picture of child?" "Yes..." "Well, you are not allowed in." Yeah, I would be okay with that tbh.
anyone
“well what about nazis/the kkk/etc”, the answer is that ideologies that are inherently intolerant of other people just for existing do not get the benefit of tolerance themselves.
Oh so we agree as I said in my original post "Just hung up on the word anyone here" you would prevent some amount of people from coming over... So it's not inherently racist to make nazis/kkk immigration illegal?
-
Not sure where the vitriol is coming from. Did I do something to personally offend you? I'm guessing you are just not fully comfortable with your ideas.
Force people to take a test or something?
"Would you have sex with this child holds up picture of child?" "Yes..." "Well, you are not allowed in." Yeah, I would be okay with that tbh.
anyone
“well what about nazis/the kkk/etc”, the answer is that ideologies that are inherently intolerant of other people just for existing do not get the benefit of tolerance themselves.
Oh so we agree as I said in my original post "Just hung up on the word anyone here" you would prevent some amount of people from coming over... So it's not inherently racist to make nazis/kkk immigration illegal?
Ah so you are that special kind of dumbass.
-
I wonder how old you are. Seems you're missing the population issue. I can go on and on, but I'm 54 and I've seen demographics and population change radically. Fine with the demographic changes, but I can see some being alarmed that "their" country is being taken away. Don't agree, but I get the sentiment.
As I've seen the planet's population more than double in my life, seen the countryside paved over for strip malls, I'm screaming, "NO MORE FUCKING PEOPLE!" Who's to blame? Can you see how it's easier to blame the "other"?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Well the population itself is not even 1/100th 'at capacity' in the US. The distribution of the population is certainly a cause for concern, and infrastructure is sorely in need of upgrade, but those are management problems. These are arguably exacerbated by the the fear of 'who' the increased infrastructure would be for, but it is in no way driven by lack of resources or space. We have huge swathes of crop land subsidized into non-food crops, crazy amounts of unoccupied land, ready access to transportation if we had drivers. Maybe the most restrictive resource is water and workforce. No magic fix for the former, but immigration would directly fix the later.
You may not want more towns/cities, and additional building should be done with pollution in mind, but it really comes down to 'not in my backyard'-ism. There are a lot of people that exist, through no fault of their own, and to say they should live in even more cramped and dangerous environments than you just so you can afford more elbow room is exactly my point. It's not legal or logistics reasons the US doesn't want more immigration, it's primarily culture and racism. Good or bad, i'd be willing to bet when someone moves in down the street with a German accent most people will think, at worst, it's kind of interesting, but if they are dark skinned or speak Spanish, a whole bunch of people that didn't bat an eye at the German immigrant, legal or otherwise, will suddenly have concerns about 'over population'.
