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.
Not really, but the racist part is opposing measures making it achievable and even simple to do so legally. Then all the terrible treatment along the way.
yes. the ones complaining about “immigrants” at all are the ones who made their lives shit in the first place.
let them in and fucking take care of them.
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.
No,
because it doesn’t even fit the definition of racism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
Illegal immigrants are of absolutely all sorts, so there is no single human trait that is uniquely only found in illegal migrants. Also, people don’t oppose illegal migrants, they oppose illegal migration as a general thing. Illegal migrants are not the problem, they are simply the cause, and people hate the problems that arise in a society after to much illegal migration.
People need to stop calling everyone they disagree with racists, its so watered down that it completely lost any meaning and weight behind it. Didn’t get up to a granny on the bus? Racist. Driving a white car? Racist. Using an iPhone? Racist.
There is a version of illegal migration that I would support and truly leave an open door for everyone: You must adopt the culture, you must learn the language, you must find a job, you won’t get any welfare or housing and you can’t ask for anything in our society to be “like it was at your home”. And voila! Everyone welcome.
Considering the high proportion of the population with ancestors who were illegal immigrants, there’s also a question of what you consider as acceptable.
If illegal immigrants in the US are all white Christian beautiful women filling jobs that locals don’t want to do in healthcare, is it different than Pedro from Honduras who works in construction but looks like he could be a drug mule.
OP did not mention the US.
The term is a little racist. It is like defining someone as an excon, or ex convict, rather than someone who has spent time in prison. Or as disabled rather than a person with a disability. You define people as a simple thing rather than as a whole person with a feature. It flattens people into less than they are and makes them less than human.
So opposing people who flaunt the rules is a separate question to opposing illegal immigrants. You don’t dismiss their humanity, you don’t discard them, you say “You breeched the rules and here are the consequences.”
The second layer is whether you believe in the rules. Do you believe people from other countries are fundamentally different to you? Are they less because of where they come from? If so, yes, racist. If not, then probably not.
I feel like “illegal” immigration as a concept is inherently racist and being upset and anyone for not coming over the “right” way is also racist.
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.
It really depends on why you oppose them. There is no real answer to that question.
no.
however, it is racist to oppose them because they’re not your race.
Usually, yes
Because usually the reason they have to be illegal is racist, and the person complaining about illegal immigration is fine with it.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?
Nothing makes you more racist than having a legal alibi to hide your racism.
This question reeks of asking if keeping slaves when they were “legal” racist? If it’s legal, what’s the big deal?
deleted by creator
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.
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”
Oh my God the HEMMING and HAWING when suggesting easier immigration to one of these bigots.
They will do anything to avoid answering that question. It’s really disgusting
I also would not be fine with it.
Having a barrier to entry is what keeps most of the dipshits out. There are dipshits in every country. I don’t want to have to deal with another country’s dipshits - we have enough to deal with on our own.
Exactly what the barriers to entry are should be reformed so that they make sense and allow all people in easily if they meet some straightforward requirements.
Borders have existed since paleolithic tribes staked out perimeters around their camps and established hunting territory boundaries with other tribes. Is it possible that we will someday live in a world completely free of restricted travel? Sure! But abolishing all barriers to entry across national boundaries tomorrow with a snap of the fingers would be a disaster.
keeps most of the dipshits out
Perhaps, but the undocumented immigrants being rounded up do not seem to be dipshits. Dreamers, day laborers, people here for the past 20 years with no criminal history. Keeping the dipshits out is a nice idea, but our current policies are evicting people I want as neighbors.
I agree. I think our current policies are dumb as fuck.
I think I understand what you’re saying and don’t necessarily fully disagree, but the directness at the very start definitely made me brace for xenophobia. In part because “dipshits” can be used as a dogwhistle
However, I would 100% classify trumpers as dipshits
but the directness at the very start definitely made me brace for xenophobia
Yeah, I mean, I was direct because I was disagreeing with them.
However, I would 100% classify trumpers as dipshits
I agree
I support legal immigration, I empathize with illegal immigration (and think the laws could use adjustment in both directions)…but I don’t think all immigration should be legal.
And no, it doesn’t change if they’re from “a Western country” or from somewhere that people look different from the majority in my country.
We have rising unemployment among citizens, especially young people, yet corporations are taking advantage of immigrants in various ways. And immigrants of all kinds – legal, grey area, and illegal immigrants.
We are selling the idea of a lifestyle to people in other countries that isn’t attainable unless you’re part of the top quintile (or possibly an even smaller group) of income. Then they come here, bringing their university educations, and are competing for jobs against high schoolers.
I’m all about people coming to live in my country. But we’re doing a disservice to immigrants through our laws/regulations and our corporations. And people who are here illegally are usually the biggest victims; the most exploited.
Yes because this is all land stolen by illegals. Assuming you’re in North America. Canada and United States both literally illegally migrated here. No excuse or logic that would make sense that others shouldnt do the same. The end.
