Gary Johnson: Calling illegals “illegal” is “very incendiary” (video)

[Jesse James]

Am I wrong?

Do you call everyone illegal on account of the fact that at some point in their past they committed some misdemeanor?

That's what you're doing when you label anyone who has ever violated a law into coming to this country or overstaying a visa as "illegal."

"******" doesn't have an actual meaning, it is a slur.

"illegal" has a very clear meaning. and an "illegal immigrant" is, whether we think it is morally right, a matter of fact.

I have definitely heard people use "illegal jay walking" "illegal drug using" etc.

 

[Superfluous Man]

"******" doesn't have an actual meaning, it is a slur.

Yes it's a slur. But of course it has an actual meaning. "Illegal immigrant" is also a slur. That's the whole point.

I have definitely heard people use "illegal jay walker" "illegal drug user" etc.

Never in my life have I heard those labels used except in cases where they're being applied to someone actually committing the crime, and not just on account of having done so at some point in the past.

 

[Jesse James]

Yes it's a slur. But of course it has an actual meaning. "Illegal immigrant" is also a slur. That's the whole point.



Never in my life have I heard those labels used except in cases where they're being applied to someone actually committing the crime, and not just on account of having done so at some point in the past.

I meant to put jay walking and using.

what is the definition of ******?

 

[Superfluous Man]

You do not appear to be understanding the basic concept of "illegal" here. If I jaywalk one day I do not become an illegal citizen, but if someone enters the country unlawfully with the intent to live here, then they are an illegal immigrant. No amount of time spent or hot dogs consumed can change the fact that they are an immigrant without a legal status. They do not magically become legal after a 30 day waiting period.

Simply being here is not illegal, not even if the way they got here was illegal. No, they aren't citizens, that's true. But it is legal to be here without being a citizen.

They, at some point in the past, committed a misdemeanor, very much like jaywalking. But that illegality doesn't follow them around any more than jaywalking does. We don't take someone who jaywalked 10 years ago and insist that every step they took since that time was invalid so that they now have to go back to the other side of the street they crossed 10 years ago and cross it legally.

 

[presence]

Natural law, natural justice, being a principle that is naturally applicable and adequate to the rightful settlement of every possible controversy that can arise among men; being, too, the only standard by which any controversy whatever, between man and man, can be rightfully settled; being a principle whose protection every man demands for himself, whether he is willing to accord it to others, or not; being also an immutable principle, one that is always and everywhere the same, in all ages and nations; being self-evidently necessary in all times and places; being so entirely impartial and equitable towards all; so indispensable to the peace of mankind everywhere; so vital to the safety and welfare of every human being; being, too, so easily learned, so generally known, and so easily maintained by such voluntary associations as all honest men can readily and rightfully form for that purpose—being such a principle as this, these questions arise, viz.: Why is it that it does not universally, or well nigh universally, prevail? Why is it that it has not, ages ago, been established throughout the world as the one only law that any man, or all men, could rightfully be compelled to obey? Why is it that any human being ever conceived that anything so self-evidently superfluous, false, absurd, and atrocious as all legislation necessarily must be, could be of any use to mankind, or have any place in human affairs?
[]

What, then, is legislation? It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion over all other men whom they can subject to their power. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not, do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be. It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will, pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as human legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed.

-Lysander Spooner 1882

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/spooner-natural-law-or-the-science-of-justice-1882


When immigrants are illegalized is that by the process of Natural Law or edict of legislation?

 

[Superfluous Man]

I meant to put jay walking and using.

what is the definition of ******?

A black person. It's a slur for black people. We all know this. Just like illegal immigrant is a slur for people who at some point in the past committed some irrelevant misdemeanor.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Simply being here is not illegal,

Who has ever argued THAT nonsense? Nobody has argued that every single human being in the US is illegal by virtue of being here.

not even if the way they got here was illegal.

Again, you do not appear to comprehend the concept of "illegal."

 

[Superfluous Man]

I see this kind of like the word oriental. The n- word is worse. But I was making a point.

I used to think "oriental" was the right word to use for Asians. It's what I learned growing up in an area where maybe 3% of the population was Asian. And they probably didn't think it was worth it to try to correct everyone else who called them that. But then I went to college and started having lots of Asian friends, who kept hearing me refer to them as oriental, and they explained to me that many Asians considered that term offensive.

I guess I don't see why I would argue with them about that.

And in the case of "illegal immigrant" it's even more obvious that the point of the term is to somehow illegitimize them. It's not like they as people are illegal. They aren't in some perpetual state of lawbreaking.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Who has ever argued THAT nonsense? Nobody has argued that every single human being in the US is illegal by virtue of being here.

Not only that, but even the people that some like to call "illegal immigrants" aren't illegal by virtue of being here.

If you disagree, I challenge you to find the law that says they are.

I do understand the concept of illegal. And the concept is the same when it applies to jaywalking as when it applies to illegally crossing a border or overstaying a visa. These laws aren't some special category that turns the person who breaks them into a perpetually illegal human being.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Not only that, but even the people that some like to call "illegal immigrants" aren't illegal by virtue of being here.

If you disagree, I challenge you to find the law that says they are.

I do understand the concept of illegal. And the concept is the same when it applies to jaywalking as when it applies to illegally crossing a border or overstaying a visa. These laws aren't some special category that turns the person who breaks them into a perpetually illegal human being.

No, you clearly do NOT understand the concept of illegal.

If you steal a car and manage to drive it around for 30 days before they catch you you do not get to claim that you are perfectly legal just because some time has passed and you are no longer actively committing the act of stealing it.

 

[Superfluous Man]

No, you clearly do NOT understand the concept of illegal.

If you steal a car and manage to drive it around for 30 days before they catch you you do not get to claim that you are perfectly legal just because some time has passed and you are no longer actively committing the act of stealing it.

That's because that car continues to belong to someone else. You are stealing it until you return it to them. Grand theft auto is also a felony. So it's not at all analogous.

A better analogy is jay walking. It's a one time thing and when it's done it's done.

 

[Superfluous Man]

They came into this country because they couldn't get in legally, but illegal is inaccurate. He needs to lay off the weed, I think he's had enough.

Just because they did something illegal, that doesn't make THEM illegal.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

No. How in the world could you get that from anything I said? I was talking about immigration, not being on someone else's property.

You are not talking about CONSENT, which is the common issue for both property owners, and for the host population of a country. This is a transaction that population voluntarily enters into, not has it forced upon them. To repeat, the relocating people are not established to be engaged in "immigration," if they are not exercising their individual responsibility to become Americans. If they have not even sought to become naturalized, and thereby receive the consent of the new country, they have not even begun to migrate, thus their indefinite presence in the country is aggression, just as a home invader or trespasser is with regard to an unwilling property owner.

 

[Superfluous Man]

You are not talking about CONSENT, which is the common issue for both property owners, and for the host population of a country. This is a transaction that population voluntarily enters into, not has it forced upon them. To repeat, the relocating people are not established to be engaged in "immigration," if they are not exercising their individual responsibility to become Americans. If they have not even sought to become naturalized, and thereby receive the consent of the new country, they have not even begun to migrate, thus their indefinite presence in the country is aggression, just as a home invader or trespasser is with regard to an unwilling property owner.

Consent is an issue in trespassing. It's not an issue in immigration. You have every right to keep the people you consider illegal immigrants off of your own property as trespassers. But you don't have any right to keep them off of my property, or anyone else's, or to keep them out of the whole country. Nor do you gain that right if 51% of the country agrees with you.

When somebody asks you to leave their property and you don't, you violate their rights for as long as you're there. That's trespassing.

Illegal immigration is not a violation of anyone's rights. It's a mere breaking of a make-believe statute that politicians dreamed up. And once the person who breaks that statute has done so, that deed is done. It's not something where they are perpetually breaking a law for as long as they stay in the USA, like a trespasser does for as long as they trespass, or a car thief has done for as long as they keep the car.

 

[Superfluous Man]

If I jaywalk one day I do not become an illegal citizen, but if someone enters the country unlawfully with the intent to live here, then they are an illegal immigrant. No amount of time spent or hot dogs consumed can change the fact that they are an immigrant without a legal status.

If you jaywalk, then nothing you do after that jaywalking will change the fact that you are henceforth illegally on the other side of the street. You are an occupant of that space without legal status. You are an illegal that-side-of-the-street-occupant.

See how little sense that makes?

But that is precisely the way people use the word "illegal" when they refer to people who crossed the border illegally as "illegal immigrants."

 

[GunnyFreedom]

6350688[/URL]]If you jaywalk, then nothing you do after that jaywalking will change the fact that you are henceforth illegally on the other side of the street. You are an occupant of that space without legal status. You are an illegal that-side-of-the-street-occupant.

See how little sense that makes?

But that is precisely the way people use the word "illegal" when they refer to people who crossed the border illegally as "illegal immigrants."

If you jaywalked, and stopped in the middle of the road set up camp and decided to live there, in the middle of the road, it would be very much illegal indeed. Until you stopped illegally inhabiting the road, whereupon the crime would then be in the past.

Frankly this his is so obvious to me that the only thing more astonishing than your position itself is the fact that you are actually trying to defend it.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Seriously Superfluous, are you trolling us now? Frankly I cannot imagine how anyone with a functioning brain could think like that.

 

[lilymc]

Seriously Superfluous, are you trolling us now? Frankly I cannot imagine how anyone with a functioning brain could think like that.

I'm beginning to think that being a Calvinist messes with one's brain and moral compass.

I was reading this thread and thinking "you've got to be kidding me."

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Illegal immigration is not a violation of anyone's rights. It's a mere breaking of a make-believe statute that politicians dreamed up. And once the person who breaks that statute has done so, that deed is done. It's not something where they are perpetually breaking a law for as long as they stay in the USA, like a trespasser does for as long as they trespass, or a car thief has done for as long as they keep the car.

There is no "immigration" going on where the parties are not seeking to become naturalized, so your continued presumption that they are "immigrants" is part of the problem. As they are not partaking of the contractual process by which the native population expresses its consent for their initial relocation AND current domicile to occur, the consent has NOT been granted, so their indefinite presence within American borders is, in fact, trespassing or invasion.

Ignoring the fact that unlawful domicile is not a consensual situation does not make the consent matter go away, and prioritizing playing identity politics (e.g., fretting over calling such aggressors the wrong name) is not the mark of a liberty-based approach to the issue.

 

[Superfluous Man]

There is no "immigration" going on where the parties are not seeking to become naturalized, so your continued presumption that they are "immigrants" is part of the problem.

Again, where are you getting this? I never assumed that, nor said anything implying it.

I'm fine with not giving anyone citizenship. But that's totally different from preventing them from coming here, working here, or living here, or kicking them out after they're here.

So go ahead and support not granting them citizenship. I won't disagree.

That's not what you're doing though.

As they are not partaking of the contractual process by which the native population expresses its consent for their initial relocation AND current domicile to occur, the consent has NOT been granted, so their indefinite presence within American borders is, in fact, trespassing or invasion.

The only level at which such a contractual process exists is the level of the individual. And on that level, in fact they are participating in it. When they rent an apartment, that is between them and that property owner, not you. And by entering that contract with that property owner, they are not trespassing. When they get a job, that is between them and their employer, not you. And by entering that contract with their employer, they are not trespassing. The same is true when they shop in a store, or visit someone's home, or any other time they are on anyone's property.

As a matter of fact, for you to try to prohibit those property owners from letting the people you consider "illegal immigrants" on their property, or you band together with a bunch of other people (claiming that your subset of the population here speaks for the country) to do that, or delegate to the government to do that on your behalf, would make YOU the trespasser, not the illegal immigrants, because you are trying to control what other people do with their own property.