President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Anna Stout

40%↑

40%↓

30%↑

5%↓

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Jerry Sonnenberg

(R) Richard Holtorf

(R) Heidi Ganahl

(R) Deborah Flora

15%

10%

10%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Doug Lamborn*

90%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Scott James

60%↑

30%↓

30%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 16, 2013 12:26 AM MST

It's Anti-Immigrant, Not Anti-Illegal Immigrant

  • 25 Comments
  • by: lyjtrpcnf

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Many people opposing immigration reform protest that they are not anti-immigrant, but rather anti-ILLEGAL immigrant.  But is this really true?  

Let’s think this out.  At a basic level there are two reasons to oppose an unauthorized immigrant being here: (a) he/she has not gone through all the correct checks (“Class A”); or (b) he/she is here in the first place (“Class B”).  By way of a quick example – if the wife of a US Marine snuck into the country, I am probably not against her being here, rather just against the fact that she did not come in legally.  On the other hand, if a member of Al Qaeda is the one who snuck in, I am against not only the fact that the member of Al Queda snuck in, but also the fact that he/she is here in the first place.

Now what implications does this have for the correct use of terms?  If the only opposition to an immigrant’s presence is based on Class A concerns, the solution is simple: you create an avenue for the same to be here legally.  However, if the opposition to the presence is based on Class B concerns, then there is no desire to create such an avenue – because you don’t want such an immigrant here at all.

In the current immigration debate, one of the major groups is NumbersUSA.  It supports not just opposition to illegal acts of immigration, but also supports “reductions in immigration numbers.”  

https://www.numbersusa.com/con…

This is opposition not just to illegal immigration but also legal immigration. Others, who don’t care about numbers so much but rather are fixated on opposing legalization for unauthorized immigrants because they “broke the rules.”  This opposition is not just to the fact that these immigrants broke rules, it is also to these immigrants’ mere presence.  Opposing these immigrants’ presence, and not just their prior rule breaking, is more than just being anti-their-illegal acts.  It is also being anti-them-immigrating-here-at-all. And what is another term for being against a person immigrating here at all?  Oh yeah – anti-immigrant.  

So let’s start being honest in this debate.  If you are against a person being in this country, just say so.  But don’t pretend that it is just their illegal acts you oppose.  Often it is more than that – it is the presence itself.  For if otherwise, the solution would be simple: legalization.  

Tweet
Share

Comments

25 thoughts on “It’s Anti-Immigrant, Not Anti-Illegal Immigrant”

  1. acknowledged crazy bigot, has never made a secret of his distaste for all Mexican and other Latin American immigration (the people who remodeled his basement, I suppose, should have gone back to Mexico immediately after), not just the illegal variety. Many on the right barely, if at all, bother to attempt to disguise their fear of “brown” culture over-running “white” culture. They are notably not hysterical over the Canadian border or Dutch people over-staying visas.

    Coming from Tancredo this is a hoot since his kind of swarthy immigrant ancestors were considered next door to subhuman when they came to our shores and nobody is ever going to mistake him for a Viking or anything. He may join in singing about Dixie all he likes but the KKK wasn’t too fond of his kind either. One suspects he goes to sleep praying to wake up tall and blonde.

        1. Be VERY careful before you start calling people bigots.  Best to give them the benefit of the doubt and explain their motivations by some other mechanism if possible.  

          2. “lessons” from you, darlin’. I base my analysis of Tancredo on years of hearing and reading the words out of his own mouth and other concrete evidence. You might want to dial back the self-righteousness a tad. Just a suggestion, though, not a “lesson”.  

            1. For immigration reform to pass, it must get through the House.  Which is GOP controlled and has heavy Tea Party influence. Taking the attitude that opposing immigration reform is “racist” is a quick way NOT to influence that chamber.

              You get more flies with honey than vinegar.  

              1. as a bigoted racist is not generated solely by “opposing immigration reform.”

                Nothing of import is going to pass the 113th. It may turn out to be even more dysfunctional than the 112th.

              2. My comment is about a specific person, Tom Tancredo, and about your self righteous assumption that I am in need of being taught lessons by you in your superior wisdom.  So, two things:  

                1)As per this particular discussion, nothing you have chosen to note in your most recent reply in place of discussing the individual named Tom Tancredo is relevant.

                2) I recognize neither your authority to be my teacher nor my need for instruction in the matter of recognizing bigotry when I see it.

                As a side note, atop a high horse is not a useful position from which to conduct meaningful discussion.

                  1. That’s another discussion. You keep evading the subjects of this discussion.

                    The only subjects of the discussion  I’ve been attempting to have with you with no success, are whether or not there is concrete evidence that Tancredo is a bigot, thereby making my saying that he is a bigot an objective assessment, not name calling, and whether or not you are justified in assuming yourself to be in a position to teach me “lessons”. That’s it.

                    Since you clearly have no intention of addressing those two issues there is no point in further discussion.  Your responses to me are simply not relevant, being responses that belong in another discussion about something else. You either can’t or choose not to focus on the matters at hand, probably the latter.

                    Changing the subject is such a transparent way of evading it, yet I find that’s what righties do most often since the reality based world seems to them to be intrinsically biased against them.

                    Oh, by the way, how many of your Tea Party friends are now ardent supporters of the kind of immigration reform you envision because of your skills in winning people over?  Never mind.  You won’t answer and I’m too tired of not getting direct responses to pursue more non-discussion with you.

                    1. To call somebody a bigot/racist you need much greater evidence than anything that might be out there on Tancredo.  Moreover, going that route is simply not productive if your goal is to change minds on the topic of immigration, which is my goal here.  

                      As for supporters of immigration reform, tune into 560 AM sometime.  Jason Worley is a supporter of it, largely due to conversations I have had with him.  There are a lot of others too.  

    1. As that means no border inspection.  I favor border inspections…I just think the criteria we use now do not serve the national interest and as such should be reexamined.  

                1. was the more liberal.   The winner was the one whose synagogue was so liberal it closed for Jewish holidays;-)

                    I am agnostic myself but if I had to pick a religion it would be reform judaism, which combines a rational approach to the world with a respect and reverence for the historical roots of religious thought.

                  1. Fond and respectful of my heritage and attached to some of the traditions. Enjoy a  nice reform service once or twice a year.   The sermons are always topical. Never about staying out of hell or anything. I think I’m not exactly agnostic but what I believe in is probably abstract enough that the difference between what I am and agnostic is hard to quantify. Suffice to say I do believe in a spiritual aspect of what I believe to be the central mystery of existence; infinity. It’s a tough nut to crack from either the vantage of science/math or that of religion.

  3. I saw this thing once in a pond…

    it swam like a duck

    it walked like a duck

    it even quacked like a duck.

    I guess it’s possible I don’t know what a duck is…but….

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!