I’m getting the feeling that you’re incorrect.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner.
Why is it so difficult to consider fellow human beings as just that? The fact that by luck of the draw you were born someplace that other people might choose to find refuge doesn’t give you any inherent rights that put you above others.
.
How so? I got the exact same conclusion from your statements
I’m now helpfully stating that, no, that’s not the case. What conclusion do you get from that statement?
No doubt you’d also object to a prohibition on the use of “wetback”, since that might prevent you from “accurately” describing a brown person who inadvertently walked through a sprinkler.
That you’re arguing in bad faith, basically.
Suppose that you for some reason would have to flee your home. Would you consider yourself an invader to the place where you end up?
The people with papers have papers, yes. The people who have specific papers allowing them to be in the country are officially allowed to be in the country, yes. Are you claiming that they also belong in your definition of “invaders”?
It’s inflammatory.
We already do.
There’s a word beginning with N. It means ‘person who has dark skin, or is defined as a member of the group of people having dark skin.’ That is its accurate meaning. It is nevertheless banned from this board except as a matter of technical discussion; and rightly so.
You know that it’s inflammatory, and that’s why you want to use it. There it is, in your own words. You didn’t try to claim that it’s not inflammatory; you said that that’s exactly why you want to use it.
And I can say “no, I’m not,” and you can say “yes, you are,” and I can say “nuh-uh,” and you can say “yuh-huh.” It’s probably pointless to continue in this vein.
Read my edit.
If you go back far enough, we are all migrants. Even myself, and I can trace my family back a couple of centuries. But we all started out in Africa and roamed from there.
I don’t believe you. There’s no point to discussing this further.
If someone else finds it inflammatory — which is how Banquet Bear finds it — but doesn’t find another term inflammatory, then I’m not going to claim the former isn’t or the latter is, if I find the former and the latter to be equivalent; I’m going to bring to their attention that, hey, the terms seem equivalent.
Are there people who have specific papers showing nothing of the sort, or showing the exact opposite?
Still waiting for an answer
Migrants is one thing. If you go back far enough, are we all illegal immigrants?
Which is, I suppose, the answer to your retroactive “read my edit” question: if, in your scenario, I flee — where do I go? Do I enter a place where I’m legally allowed to go, or a place where they say they’re full up and I’m not allowed in and it’d be illegal for me to immigrate there?
If you go back far enough the people letting your granddaddy in had that power by virtue of murdering the fuck out of everyone who already lived here.
That implies you have a choice. In most cases, people take whatever means they’re given to get out. That they might end up somewhere where people also have an opinion is secondary. I take it you have never actually spoken to refugees or migrants.
Your take is mistaken.
Then you probably haven’t listened.
Exactly this. It’s because white people write the history that colonization hasn’t been called illegal in this sense.
People who were born where they live are neither immigrants nor invaders. I personally think it’s abhorrent to consider their living in the only homeland they know “illegal”, but that speaks more to current laws than to my opinion.