Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
This is why people think you're probably a racist. You refuse to explain why it's actually wrong.
|
Will, he is under no obligation to explain why he agrees with undocumented immigration being illegal just to avoid being considered a racist. There is nothing about the term "illegal" to imply racism in the slightest. It is only because it is being teamed with "immigration" and immigration is for non-Americans that people are making this jump. And make no mistake, it is a jump logically.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Until you answer that, your motives are still a mystery and people fill in the blank with the reason people who make similar arguments present which is usually rooted in racism or xenophobia. Not only that, but until you answer that, there's no discussion. If you said, for example, they're taking jobs, then that could be argued and countered based on facts. If you said that they steal, we could argue that on it's merits. All you say is "it's ILLEGAL". Considering that in Texas, it's against the law for anyone to have a pair of pliers in his or her possession, laws aren't the end all be all of reason. They're a response to a reason.
|
So it is alright for everyone to assume that Pan is a racist solely on the basis of his believing in the rule of law if his motives are not explained. Got it.
Nobody ever said there were not a lot of outdated laws on the books but those are easy to identify in most cases. Your example above is perfect. The law about pliers in Texas made perfect sense back 100 years when cattle theft was an issue and pliers were required to do the job. However, you do not have to understand why it ever made sense to know that it no longer makes sense or that it is no longer enforced.
The same is true about illegal immigration. It makes sense in this day and age to have an immigration path. Going around that path is, by definition, illegal and calling it that should not make anyone anything other than a supporter of the law. It does not imply that you agree or disagree (or the "why" behind said agreement or disagreement) with the law but rather only that you recognize it as such.
I will agree that without an explanation of motive there is no discussion but assumptions about why Pan considers illegal immigrants illegal have to stop with it being a violation of the law. Anything beyond that tells me more about the person making the assumption than it does Pan.