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

[Superfluous Man]

Is a non-paying tenant or a home invader a resident of your home, simply based on their actions or say so?

If that non-paying tenant is there with your permission, then yes, they are.

If they don't have your permission, then they are committing an actual crime, and not just a make-believe crime of violating some statute that corrupt legislators dreamed up. This is not at all analogous to people who violate the USA's immigration laws, since doing that isn't really wrong.

 

[Jerry C]

This is one of the main reasons why I will NOT vote for Gary Johnson ever again, he is playing identity politics and is trying to appeal to the regressive left and this example of blatant language policing and virtue signaling proves it. While I do agree that we should remember that illegal immigrants are actual human beings the fact of the matter is that illegal immigrant is an accurate term. By doing this Gary Johnson is implying that anyone that questions current immigration policy is a racist which only serves to poison the wells and make an already divisive issue that much more so.

 

[Superfluous Man]

the fact of the matter is that illegal immigrant is an accurate term.

No it isn't.

There aren't any other laws where when people break them they as people get labelled "illegal." You don't call someone who runs a red light an illegal driver. Crossing a border illegally is no different than crossing an intersection illegally.

 

[Jerry C]

There aren't any other laws where when people break them they as people get labelled "illegal." You don't call someone who runs a red light an illegal driver. Crossing a border illegally is no different than crossing an intersection illegally.

The reason why you don't call someone who runs a red light an illegal driver is because in that case there is no need for such a distinction. In the case of illegal immigration the case for such a distinction is needed because there are a large number of immigrants that have either entered or stayed in the country illegally. It isn't just a minute number of people and said actions aren't instantaneous in the moment matters like someone running a red light. How else would you classify an illegal immigrant? The term undocumented is used a lot by regressives, but it is dishonest and innacurate. Many illegal immigrants do have documentation, but are still here illegally. While "illegal" can be used as a pejorative, it is mostly used as a simple statement of fact.

 

[Superfluous Man]

The reason why you don't call someone who runs a red light an illegal driver is because in that case there is no need for such a distinction. In the case of illegal immigration the case for such a distinction is needed because there are a large number of immigrants that have either entered or stayed in the country illegally. It isn't just a minute number of people and said actions aren't instantaneous in the moment matters like someone running a red light.

Do you really believe that the number of people who have entered the USA illegally is greater than the number who have run red lights? I highly doubt that.

How else would you classify an illegal immigrant? The term undocumented is used a lot by regressives, but it is dishonest and innacurate.

I don't see any need for any special classification of them. I don't have a special way to classify people who have run red lights. Why do I need a special way to classify people who have illegally crossed a border?

Many illegal immigrants do have documentation, but are still here illegally.

This statement is precisely what's wrong with the label. No, they are not here illegally. They broke a law at some point in order to be here (a make-believe unjust law, mind you). But they are not continuously breaking any laws by simply continuing to be here, any more than someone who has ever run a red light is going on for the rest of their lives illegally being on the wrong side of that red light.

 

[Jerry C]

Do you really believe that the number of people who have entered the USA illegally is greater than the number who have run red lights? I highly doubt that.

While that is possible, that is not in fact what I actually said or implied.

I don't see any need for any special classification of them. I don't have a special way to classify people who have run red lights. Why do I need a special way to classify people who have illegally crossed a border?

Because there is a significant difference from being in a country legally and being in a country illegally. There is nothing wrong with stating this because we have a right to know who is coming in and to determine the conditions in which they can be in the country, this makes said distinction necessary.

This statement is precisely what's wrong with the label. No, they are not here illegally. They broke a law at some point in order to be here (a make-believe unjust law, mind you). But they are not continuously breaking any laws by simply continuing to be here, any more than someone who has ever run a red light is going on for the rest of their lives illegally being on the wrong side of that red light.

Yes, they are breaking the law by continuing to be here and yes we have a right as a society to determine whether they should be able to stay or be deported because they are not actual citizens. You can argue whether this is just or not and since immigration is such a complicated issue I do understand where both sides are coming from, but a productive conversation cannot happen unless people admit to the facts. The fact is by getting here or staying here illegally they are here illegally and not admitting this is a bit dishonest. While I am not in favor of Donald Trumps proposed wall I am also not in favor of just letting everyone in without any proper controls of background checks.

 

[Superfluous Man]

While that is possible, that is not in fact what I actually said or implied.

You said:

In the case of illegal immigration the case for such a distinction is needed because there are a large number of immigrants that have either entered or stayed in the country illegally. It isn't just a minute number of people and said actions aren't instantaneous in the moment matters like someone running a red light.

Because there is a significant difference from being in a country legally and being in a country illegally.

Exactly. And the people whom you want to call "illegal immigrants" did enter the country illegally. But that doesn't mean that they are in the country illegally, as you imply they are.

Yes, they are breaking the law by continuing to be here

Can you please cite the law they are breaking?

 

[Superfluous Man]

we have a right as a society to determine whether they should be able to stay or be deported because they are not actual citizens.

"Actual citizens" is just determined by make-believe statutes that corrupt politicians came up with.

"We as a society" are not capable of determining anything. Each of us as individuals are. But you can't speak for me, nor I for you. You can exclude people from your own property. And you and a bunch of other individuals might agree to exclude all the people whom you consider "illegal immigrants" from all of your properties. But none of you have any right to tell all the rest of us that we can't have them on our property, nor do all of you put together have that right.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

This is one of the main reasons why I will NOT vote for Gary Johnson ever again, he is playing identity politics and is trying to appeal to the regressive left and this example of blatant language policing and virtue signaling proves it. While I do agree that we should remember that illegal immigrants are actual human beings the fact of the matter is that illegal immigrant is an accurate term. By doing this Gary Johnson is implying that anyone that questions current immigration policy is a racist which only serves to poison the wells and make an already divisive issue that much more so.

+rep

 

[Jerry C]

YExactly. And the people whom you want to call "illegal immigrants" did enter the country illegally. But that doesn't mean that they are in the country illegally, as you imply they are.

You can't have it both ways, you can't say on one hand that entering a country illegally is entering a country illegally and then say that remaining in a country illegally isn't remaining in a country illegally. Either they are here illegally or they are not, immigration law can get tricky at times but that matter is fairly clear cut in most cases. As for what law is broken, it depends on whether said illegal immigrant jumped a fence, overstayed a work or student visa ect...

"Actual citizens" is just determined by make-believe statutes that corrupt politicians came up with.

By that logic every law ever passed whether it be just or not (and I am saying this as someone that believes that most laws are unjust and should be repealed) is make believe and therefore not valid. Corrupt politicians like open borders because they are using that to bribe them with taxpayer money for votes so they will go along with their criminal agenda. This dosen't mean immigration itself is bad, but that it is if it isn't properly controlled.

And you and a bunch of other individuals might agree to exclude all the people whom you consider "illegal immigrants" from all of your properties. But none of you have any right to tell all the rest of us that we can't have them on our property, nor do all of you put together have that right.

If an employer knowingly hires illegal immigrants than they have committed a crime and should be arrested/fined. Illegal immigration has created a multi billion dollar black market that is driving down the wages of American workers with a de facto slavery system that is taking advantage of desperate people trying to come to America to improve the lives of themselves and their families.

 

[Superfluous Man]

You can't have it both ways, you can't say on one hand that entering a country illegally is entering a country illegally and then say that remaining in a country illegally isn't remaining in a country illegally.

But there's no such thing as remaining in the country illegally.

Remaining in the country after having entered it illegally is not illegal.

If you want to say it is, then please cite the law you're talking about.

If an employer knowingly hires illegal immigrants than they have committed a crime and should be arrested/fined.

And you support that?

What right do you or anyone else have to impose such a fine on anyone else for what they do with their own property? Is it your property or theirs?

 

[misterx]

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.

 

[Jesse James]

But none of you have any right to tell all the rest of us that we can't have them on our property, nor do all of you put together have that right.

while
that may be true, by definition, they are illegal immigrants.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

But there's no such thing as remaining in the country illegally.

Remaining in the country after having entered it illegally is not illegal.

So if somebody invades someone else's home, they have entered it illegally, but if they continue to occupy somebody else's home it is not illegal? Or, if you trespass on someone else's property, you are trespassing, but if you remain on that property, you are not trespassing?

 

[Superfluous Man]

So if somebody invades someone else's home, they have entered it illegally, but if they continue to occupy somebody else's home it is not illegal? Or, if you trespass on someone else's property, you are trespassing, but if you remain on that property, you are not trespassing?

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.

 

[Superfluous Man]

while
that may be true, by definition, they are illegal immigrants.

I suppose by the same line of reasoning you could say that every black person is by definition the n-word. But the point of the label is not accuracy, but degradation. And "illegal immigrant" is just as inappropriate of a label as it would be to apply the label "illegal driver" to anyone and everyone who has ever illegally run a red light.

In what other cases do we label people who are guilty of having committed a misdemeanor at some point in their past (as every one of us has done) as "illegals"?

 

[Jesse James]

Wtf?

 

[Superfluous Man]

Wtf?

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."

 

[presence]

while
that may be true, by definition, they are illegalized immigrants.

ftfy

 

[GunnyFreedom]

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."

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.