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

[GunnyFreedom]

Soo, basically you are just a radical open borders guy, trying to play cute games with the language in an attempt to pass off your personal opinion as though it were some kind of logic.

You should have stuck with sharing opinions as opinions. Sophistry, equivocation, amphiboly, I have no respect for them or for people who intentionally use them

 

[Superfluous Man]

Soo, basically you are just a radical open borders guy, trying to play cute games with the language in an attempt to pass off your personal opinion as though it were some kind of logic.

You should have stuck with sharing opinions as opinions. Sophistry, equivocation, amphiboly, I have no respect for them or for people who intentionally use them

If you have some logical answer to anything I've said, please share it. So far all you've done is make assertions.

I don't see any point where I've tried to pass off my personal opinion as logic.

I also don't see anything radical about my view. It's essentially the same as Ron Paul's. It's essentially the same policy that obtained in the US for a century after the Constitution was ratified. And it seems perfectly moderate and sensible to me. Treat other people's property as theirs, not the state's. That's all there is to it.

 

[Superfluous Man]

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

Then why are you a Ron Paul supporter?

 

[Superfluous Man]

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.

Right. But that's not a good analogy to illegal immigration.

A better one is simply someone who at some point in the past jaywalked, just like the only thing that makes someone an "illegal immigrants" is that at some point in the past they committed a misdemeanor.

There is no law that they continue to break over and over again every day they're here.

Or is there? If you're saying there is, then please find it. I asked you to do that before, and conspicuously you didn't.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Incidentally, what's even more incendiary than calling them "illegal immigrants" is shortening that to just "illegals," like the thread title does.

Why do people use the label "illegals"? Is it not obvious to them that it's insulting? Or are they fine with that?

People who broke immigration laws are no more illegal than anyone else who broke any other law.

 

[Jesse James]

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.

You
said "it's a slur" but it has "an actual meaning"? So which is it?

 

[Jesse James]

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.

My
step dad refers to himself as an oriental.

I guess he's a great shame to his race.

 

[Jesse James]

I think the question as libertarians is; how do we treat public land if we ourselves don't believe in it? Like an extension of our private land?

Also; in a libertarian society do we have a right to put claymores in the middle of our ranch to kill anybody who tries to pass?

The answer to these questions depend on how we look at this.

 

[Superfluous Man]

You
said "it's a slur" but it has "an actual meaning"? So which is it?

Both. It's a slur with a meaning, like illegal immigrant.

Slurs are words. Words have meanings.

 

[Superfluous Man]

My
step dad refers to himself as an oriental.

I guess he's a great shame to his race.

That's up to him. I don't think he's a shame to his race. But I do think that people who object to that label should have their opinion about it respected. That seems like common sense to me. I'm not sure why it would be controversial.

 

[Superfluous Man]

I think the question as libertarians is; how do we treat public land if we ourselves don't believe in it? Like an extension of our private land?

Also; in a libertarian society do we have a right to put claymores in the middle of our ranch to kill anybody who tries to pass?

The answer to these questions depend on how we look at this.

We demand that the government relinquish its land.

You have the right to put the claymores there. But if they blow up and kill someone, it could well make you a murderer, depending on the circumstances.

 

[Jesse James]

Both. It's a slur with a meaning, like illegal immigrant.

Slurs are words. Words have meanings.

but
you still never gave me the meaning.

 

[Superfluous Man]

but
you still never gave me the meaning.

I did too. You even quoted me doing so and replied to it.

 

[Jesse James]

I did too. You even quoted me doing so and replied to it.

your
definition had the word "slur" in it.

that is not the meaning, that is the slur. what is the meaning?

 

[Superfluous Man]

your
definition had the word "slur" in it.

No it didn't. I was very clear. I'm not sure how you missed it. But I said "a black person." My next sentence used the word "slur." But I don't see why you point that out anyway. Are definitions not allowed to use the word "slur" or something?

And this is obvious. You knew it already without my saying so.

 

[Jesse James]

I don't think Chris Rock agrees with your assessment. Also, you said it has a definition AND it was a slur, so no, the definition can not have the word slur in it.

 

[Superfluous Man]

I don't think Chris Rock agrees with your assessment. Also, you said it has a definition AND it was a slur, so no, the definition can not have the word slur in it.

That makes no sense to me. I said that it had a definition and was a slur because I was replying to your claim that by being a slur that meant it didn't have a definition.

At any rate, "illegal immigrant" is clearly a slur, and a misnomer. There is no sense in which the people it is applied to are "illegal." All of the people here who keep insisting that it's an accurate term have yet to back that up.

Incidentally, I notice that nobody has yet taken my challenge to try to find any law that says that it is illegal for the people they call "illegal immigrants" merely to exist in the USA. Check it out. See for yourself. The US law code uses the term "unlawful resident," and other similar terms employing the word "unlawful." And there is an important legal distinction between "unlawful" and "illegal." "Unlawful" means that they lack a positive legal declaration that they do belong here, whereas "illegal" (the word the US Code does not use for them) would mean that they positively violate some law by being here. As a matter of fact, when somebody is an unlawful resident of the USA there are actually laws that regulate whether or not they can even legally leave the country on their own initiative. There are also laws regulating how they can be removed from the country, and how they can appeal that and not be breaking any laws simply by existing in the country while they undergo that process. They committed a singular misdemeanor when they crossed the border without doing so the way the federal government wanted them to, or overstayed a visa. But they don't continue committing more misdemeanors every second they remain in the USA after that just by existing there.

 

[Jesse James]

They are in the process of committing a crime, thus, by definition, illegal.

 

[Superfluous Man]

They are in the process of committing a crime, thus, by definition, illegal.

No they are not in the process of committing any crime.

First of all, illegal immigration is not a crime. It is a civil, not a criminal matter, according to federal law.

Second of all, even as a misdemeanor, they are not in the process of committing one. Their committing of that misdemeanor is a singular action that happened in the past. Merely existing in the USA is not a misdemeanor for them.

Do you think I'm wrong about that? Then prove it. I've checked. Why haven't you? You keep making these assertions about the law that, at the end of the day, you just pulled out of your rectum.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Granted, the more important point is the one that Presence made earlier, that federal immigration laws are void to begin with, since they're unjust laws.

But it's worth pointing out that, even according to these void laws, there is no sense in which so-called "illegal immigrants" are continuously in the process of committing any crime, nor even a misdemeanor, just by being here.