There’s no such law. Further, in this country, crimes have to be proven in a court of law.
No one put a gun to your head and demanded you categorize these people as “illegal” - those are your words, and you should own them if that’s what you believe, not hide behind the Pew Center. Especially when they didn’t call them illegal - you did.
But you would voluntarily deport yourself? And support those who would demand your ouster?
Or telling poor people that rather than going on wellfare that they should just win the lottery.
I do believe they’re here illegally. I believe they’re illegal immigrants. I believe people use the phrase “undocumented immigrants” to mean “illegal immigrants”, and I believe the cite from the Washington Post helps establish that — but I think you know all of this already. I use the adjective “illegal” because I believe what they’re doing is, in fact, “illegal”.
I’m not hiding behind the cite; I’m just noting that it specified the following: “The Pew Research Center’s latest estimates indicate about 10.5 million undocumented immigrants live in the United States. That means the vast majority of foreign-born people living in the United States (77%) are here legally.” The only reason to state that 77% are here legally is to contrast them with the ones who — aren’t here legally. Those who — are here illegally. It’s utterly straightforward. It’s beyond obvious. I don’t see how you can, in good faith, argue as if this conclusion eludes you.
Is this supposed to be some kind of gotcha? Far from supporting those who’d demand my ouster, I’d use every legal means available to me — but what would it establish if I answered otherwise?
No one believes a Nazi death camp executioner who says “Not only was I following orders, I would have meekly walked into the gas chamber myself when it was my turn. I wouldn’t try to escape. Why that would be ILLEGAL!”
Again: what is this supposed to establish? That people will break the law if motivated to do so? That’s an argument that seems to lead to interesting conclusions about exactly what it would take to stop would-be illegal immigrants who won’t ask permission.
It establishes that you’re a weasel.
Cool. I’ve got great news for you! Your lawyer says you’ve got a great case There is absolutely no reason why you shouldn’t legally be allowed to stay inside the country. As soon as we get your case in front of an immigration judge it should slam dunk to get your citizenship legally reinstated. Unfortunately there is a back log in the courts and you’re going to have to wait 5 years in Romania till they get to your case. Sorry for the inconvenience.
You’ve presented no evidence of actual specific criminal behavior. That 77% are here legally may imply the others are not (with no evidence cited, notably), but it certainly isn’t proof in court of law of illegality. It actually tells us pretty much nothing, except how Pew categorizes various groups statistically.
It’s certainly common to make this assumption, as you are doing. But that doesn’t actually explain anything.
It comes down to this - let’s see if you can answer these straight forward questions: Do you believe those accused of being illegal immigrants, or undocumented immigrants, are worthy of the right to presumption of innocence? If not, at least you’re willing to admit the deep contempt you have for these human beings, to the point that you don’t believe they’re worthy of the same rights as your favored categories. But if so, then why do you rhetorically categorize them as criminals, when, for the vast majority, they’ve never been convicted in a court of law, nor given a chance to defend themselves?
You don’t have to use that phrase, but you choose to. Your choice. Please answer these simple questions.
Oh. Do things change if I already have an American spouse, along with an American employer who makes money off of the skills I developed while living here? Is there, like, some kind of waiver in that case?
Is there really any point in continuing to interact with someone after this admission?
It’s an interesting exploration of how hateful people justify, rationalize, and deny their hatred within their own mind.
In court, or otherwise?
In everyday life, I presume X has broken a law; put me on a jury, instruct me that for purposes of the trial I’m to presume innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and I’ll do my duty then and there with regard to the legal fiction. Context matters.
So in what context is it okay to accuse a group of millions of criminal behavior when no crime has been proven, much less even formally accused?
When have I denied hatred?
There are all sorts of different waivers that you are legally eligible for, that is why its a slam dunk case. But its still going to take 5 years for it to be heard, and we can’t trust you dirty foreigner butt to hang around here while we make sure its all legal. Please take a number we’ll get to you eventually so long as your still alive by the time we get to you.
This one. Was that unclear?
Do you hate those men, women, and children who have been accused of being undocumented or illegal immigrants?
What is “this one”?
…accused? That seems ridiculous; after all, you could turn around and “accuse” me of being an undocumented or illegal immigrant in no time flat. No, I need more than that.