Issues and arguments entwined with consistency and facts can be productive. Everybody today is screaming for facts and truth, and accusing each other of alternate facts. If you ask for this from others, then it would be appropriate for you to exhibit what you ask for.
Jose Antonio Vargas is an illegal (not legal) immigrant and is an outspoken immigration advocate (legal or illegal, I don’t know). He argues that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are not criminals. S-a-y what? Say that again. By *definition* if you’re illegal, you’re a criminal. Who is doing “alternate facts”, here? If you mean something else when you say criminal, then say that. As stated, you’re assuming a pretty egregious alternate definition of “criminal”. Perhaps you meant to say, “Most illegal immigrant criminals are not serious criminals.” Okay. At least that does not sneak in alternative definitions.
With no clarification, he moved on. He explained that he’s one of millions living the “gray are” and it was a tough day under Trump’s new orders. Laura Wilkerson’s, who’s son was killed by an illegal immigrant, pointed out that a tough day is having your child killed, not deportation. She pointed out “You’re legal or illegal. It’s one way or the other. There is no ‘gray area'”.
Roberto Suro of the Washington Post disagrees. He imagines a form of globalism that ensures that nobody is defined as illegal (“everybody would get some kind of papers”), leaving no authority in a nation to define itself.
Roberto continues, “We need to look beyond strict definitions of legal and illegal.” “[Illegals pass borders] with or without permission, they straddle laws, jurisdictions and identities with ease,” so we should “accommodate this new world of people”. Say what? People saying this appear to totally miss the point that the mores of the nation they so much want to live in — such as following the law — created the nation they want to live in. First up on the docket should be their submission to the laws of the land, not arrive here and try to change it before they are even part of it.
For all the people pushing facts and wanting to label everybody else a liar and ridicule alternate facts:
1) Is an undocumented alien legal or illegal? The very word “undocumented” is a morphing of the language in order to normalize an alternate fact. Note: both facts are true, but which you say is a choice between alternatives.
2) Is an illegal immigrant a criminal? To define a criminal another way is an alternative fact. IMHO, it’s incumbent on the person who uses a word differently to defend the change.
3) If national borders and walls are bad, why are walls on your house or apartment good? Advocating one fact while choosing to live another does not resonate well with listeners. What do walls on your house give you? Doesn’t a nation deserve to have the same to protect itself? Without this, it’s an international communal living. You can argue that this is good, but to argue that this is legal in America is beyond an alternate fact.
AFTER we get the facts straight, THEN let’s have a discussion. Say something like “1 Million illegal immigrants want to document the HUGE net value they are to the American economy and based on that demonstrated record, want to petition for clemency.” Now THAT might have traction with the new president!