Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The post I replied to mentioned immigration, not illegal immigration.


Illegal immigration is a subset of immigration, and the focus of 90 plus percent of immigration policy and debate.


I disagree. Illegal immigration and immigration are two separate topics.

For example, one can be completely in favor of x amount of immigration, and be completely opposed to illegal immigration.

In the context of rayiner's post, the historic political cry of "immigrants bad" was not usually about illegal immigrants, it was about legal immigrants willing to work for less than people who grew up in America. There are plenty of records of anti Irish and anti Italian immigrant sentiment (or any other wave of ethnic migration that causes competition for the existing working class).

I would go so far as to say that current Republicans did skillfully weave the two political causes together in modern times to gain support of both those seeking law and order and those who dislike immigrants.

I think maybe that local level Democrats tarnished the national branding of Democrats by glorifying acceptance of illegal immigration, which might be popular in a select few cities or states, but not on the national stage (referring to sanctuary city policies).


Maybe we will have to agree to disagree.

>For example, one can be completely in favor of x amount of immigration, and be completely opposed to illegal immigration.

This proves nothing, illegal immigration can still be a subset. I like food but dont like apples. This doesnt prove an apple isnt food.

Illegal immigration has been the focus of the immigration debate in the US for at least the last 50 years. Politicians dont debate the optimal number of green cards and H1B visas on podium.


> This proves nothing, illegal immigration can still be a subset. I like food but dont like apples. This doesnt prove an apple isnt food.

This is not an analogous situation or context. It would be logically consistent to support a policy of importing food, except for apples, if you think apples are causing a problem that other foods are not.

We were not discussing the existence of immigrants themselves, which yes, by definition, illegal immigrants are a subset of immigrants since they are immigrants. But that is not interesting nor useful to converse about.

We were discussing the acceptance of immigrants (legal) versus the acceptance of illegal immigrants.


>We were discussing the acceptance of immigrants (legal) versus the acceptance of illegal immigrants.

Thats your take, not mine. I think the national conversation and rayiner's point is primarily about illegal immigration.

If you want to talk about why a big part of the US public feels betrayed, I think illegal immigration is both relevant and useful.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: