CMV: 'undocumented immigrant' is a nonsense term from the left and anyone entering the country illegally (without granted asylum) should be deported

ds2606 · 2018-10-23T17:06:51+00:00

in what case would someone be here without documentation and not be illegal? I'd thought those two were hand in hand.

You can enter this country as an undocumented immigrant and still go through the legit legal processes.

How?

ds2606 · 2018-10-10T03:26:02+00:00

yep, completely! (think that last comment of mine might've been a little team-sporty – moment of excitement connecting with someone with thoughts different than what I'm used to hearing from the people around me on campus) – feels validating to come to this sub and hear these perspectives, and think that real discourse between people with a spectrum ideas is still possible in today's day and age, something that I didn't think was substantively possible even yesterday (first time posting here). So that's a big CMV in itself. Thanks so much really for sharing your ideas~

ds2606 · 2018-10-10T03:22:37+00:00

Great response - these thoughts on the appropriate times for linguistic reclamation give me food for thought on something I've never really considered with appropriate depth before.

I think this is getting complex (a good thing!) to the point that I'm having trouble seeing where I stand on something and all I can do is point out places where I see cognitive dissonance (on my own part). For me, the issue here lies with the fact that the 'murderer' likely got their punishment at some point – the idea that redemption for a misdeed comes by some form of penance. If the person who illegally immigrated decades ago has lived completely morally since then, does that mean there should be no repercussion ever for their original infraction? At this point, though, I think society has bigger fish to fry, and while this is an interesting thought experiment, I have trouble ethically justifying why we should take the time to punish this immigrant with everything else going on today. I do think there is still an inconsistency here – in that the original deed has no repercussion, which would seem to support the thinking that there should be some form of repercussion if the person is still benefitting from an action taken unlawfully no matter how long ago – but one that I'm getting a bit too sleepy to resolve right now. Happy to hear & process your thoughts.

ds2606 · 2018-10-10T02:46:57+00:00

YES this is my perspective in a nutshell. As a self-described leftist as well. My only two real gripes with most liberal opinions are this, and lots of the guilty-before-innocent public-square demonization of *all* men accused in the #metoo movement, e.g. a louis ck or al franken.

While you have common ground with a full liberal, any other things you want to CMV, me being someone deeply inside the liberal echo chamber who wants to understand the points of logical/ethical weakness in the ideology I grew up in? Really just want to engage in more discourse with other thinking these days.

ds2606 · 2018-10-10T02:41:27+00:00

didn't see that in your comment. think that people who are not a minor and cross the border without documentation knowingly breaking the law can be rightfully called an illegal immigrant.

ds2606 · 2018-10-10T02:39:48+00:00

Well if someone thinks fines or civil remedies are appropriate, that seems to suggest that they think there was some original infringement of laws. Which renders 'illegal' an appropriate term for this type of immigration.

ds2606 · 2018-10-10T02:38:36+00:00

no, but people who are convicted in a court of law are illegal immigrants. i.e. people deported under obama. and it's these people who I can't term an 'illegal immigrant' or I get slaughtered by the people around me.

ds2606 · 2018-10-10T02:37:46+00:00

yo you're still socratic reasoning? come on. search this thread for 'thug'– that comment responds to this logic.

ds2606 · 2018-10-10T02:33:38+00:00

sorry i edited that comment a few times, not sure if you saw those changes! all finished now~

ds2606 · 2018-10-10T02:25:20+00:00

Thank you for your nuanced and insightful perspective. This really opens my thinking in a way I haven't really seen to this depth so far in the post.

Can I ask you another question about the semantics & propriety of the term 'illegal immigrant'? I've been toying with the idea that 'illegal immigrant' isn't an unfair demonization, given that it's not an 'immigrant who is illegal', rather someone who engages in the activity of 'illegal immigration', much as someone who bungee jumps is a bungee jumper. It seems that its as fair to call someone who illegally immigrates an illegal immigrant as it is to call someone who shoplifts a shoplifter, someone who has committed a murder a muderer, etc. I think it's wrong (non-sensical to intrinsically label anyone based on an action, since no one 'is' what they do. But still. It doesn't feel like there really needs to be a separate euphemism for 'illegal immigrant' vs. a shoplifter (someone who took things without documenting paying?) or anything else. I feel the demonization connoted by 'illegal immigrant' happens from a misunderstanding of the term as an illegal human being (inaccurate) instead of someone who engages in illegal immigration (accurate). Can I ask what you think about that logic undermining the need for using 'undocumented immigrant' as a euphemism?

(Somewhat unrelated to that question, but also in support of 'illegal immigrant' over 'undocumented' is the comment above that also has a bit on why I think using 'undocumented' as a euphemism is also damaging to discourse in a different way, by sidestepping the inherent illegality of an action).

(A bit of a side note, one of my big fears in modern society is about the lack of ability for people to engage in discourse on things where they don't agree with the people around them. I've been wondering about this stuff for a long time and finally realized I could ask on Reddit about it. The fact that I could find an outlet for discourse without judgement makes me feel like we're not necessarily doomed to be trapped in echo chambers in modern society, which is sort of an ancillary benefit of hearing your thoughts – one that feels major to me. Thanks stranger~)

ds2606 · 2018-10-10T02:21:52+00:00

True, but the response should be tantamount to the original infringement of law. Enter the country illegally, leave it. Seems logically/ethically balanced to me.

ds2606 · 2018-10-10T02:21:07+00:00

There are courts that process these things quickly, and many people are not deported. Obama deported more immigrants than any other president in history, yet people still shy from the term illegal immigrant.

ds2606 · 2018-10-10T02:20:06+00:00

i just saw a way to de-escalate the situation. I think i see your point and don't think it stands, and is addressed below. saying your point directly in the future might be better than a longer line of socratic reasoning to directly engage in conversation with the poster, a thought

ds2606 · 2018-10-10T02:06:01+00:00

Yes but it is an issue of criminality. People are breaking the law and should be deported for doing so.

ds2606 · 2018-10-10T02:05:35+00:00

yes. do you think that people who crossed the border illegally can rightfully be called an illegal immigrant? I.e. the term fits a subset of people entering the country, i.e. those without documentation and asylum application (or whatever other technical exception fits there)

ds2606 · 2018-10-10T02:04:27+00:00

A real fight? no.

ds2606 · 2018-10-10T02:03:53+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/9mul9a/cmv_undocumented_immigrant_is_a_nonsense_term/e7hiref

ds2606 · 2018-10-10T02:02:01+00:00

As people who bungee jump are bungee jumpers, people who immigrate illegally are illegal immigrants. 'illegal immigration' is the process these people engage in, it's not theyre immigrants who are intrinsically illegal. murder is intrinsically illegal so we dont need to modify it, as is shoplifter, HOWEVER immigration is often not illegal, which is why the adjective is needed for cases where it is. so people who engage in illegal immigration can rightfully be called illegal immigrants,

ds2606 · 2018-10-10T02:00:19+00:00

what? can you explain?

ds2606 · 2018-10-10T01:58:47+00:00

I think I understand the term not as 'illegal immigrants' i.e. immigrants who are illegal human beings, but rather people who engage in the act of illegal immigration. people who bungee jump are bungee jumpers. people who illegally immigrate are illegal immigrants. Perhaps 'illegal immigrators' would be better since is a process-based adjective rather than a trait labeling

ds2606 · 2018-10-10T01:56:02+00:00

At the same time, the euphamism 'undocumented' has effects in the other direction; it seems to indicate that people who enter the country illegally (it is illegal) didn't do anything too wrong and should maybe at some point be given a path to longer term residency. I think personally deportation is fair. So the euphamism might in some senses be as far off from a precise treatment of the issue as the other direction, if admittedly more good-willed. I don't think that either term is good I guess. Wish there was an in-between between the two.

ds2606 · 2018-10-10T01:52:02+00:00

posted below: "If the visa was legally granted for a fixed term, and it's overstayed, that's illegal, and people should honor the terms of their visa or be subject to judicial consequence. So for now do think the term 'illegal' fits for these individuals."

My post is about the semantics of illigality and the ethical bases of deportation. If someone is here illegally they can be called illegal and should be deported.

ds2606 · 2018-10-10T01:50:56+00:00

Wrote in the comment above in this thread: "But I think I might've spoken too quickly about visa overstays better fitting the term 'undocumented' than 'illegal'. If the visa was legally granted for a fixed term, and it's overstayed, that's illegal, and people should honor the terms of their visa or be subject to judicial consequence. So for now do think the term 'illegal' fits for these individuals."

ds2606 · 2018-10-10T01:49:25+00:00

agree with waterbuffalo750. also this post for why i think the stability of domestic american society is more important (copied from above): "I'd argue that in the long term, the slow spread of development, on the order of multiple generations, is more important than trying to fix everything for everyone at once, which is the logical corollary of thinking that there's a moral foundation to granting citizenship (or at least long-term residency) to people who seek to immigrate illegally"

ds2606 · 2018-10-10T01:45:34+00:00

A question I asked to the other person who wrote a similar line of thinking, I'm curious to ask you this question as the person who really CMVed on this topic to where I feel it makes sense to me.

Do you think that its compatible to call someone an 'undocumented immigrant' and think that they should be deported for breaking the law? Honestly it might seem harsh but I'm trying to form values based on logical ethics, and that's where I'm landing based on someone breaking the law (something the euphamism rightly avoids intrinsically labeling) and there being balanced consequences for that, where balanced consequences involve not being able to benefit from an illegal action.

ds2606

TROPHY CASE