[always_good]

>The far left's constant push to draw increasingly unremarkable positions like "US jobs should go to US workers" as beyond the pale is why we're stuck with Trump.

Well said. Just like how anti-illegal-immigration (an unremarkable position) is now synonymous with anti-Mexican.

It creates scenarios like the article where you're kneejerk labeled a racist and that's supposed to be self-evident.

[dashundchen]

> Well said. Just like how anti-illegal-immigration (an unremarkable position) is now synonymous with anti-Mexican.

Have you considered this is because the some of the loudest voices on the right have wrapped up the immigration debate with some nasty rhetoric based on race, nationality and nationalistic emotion, not policy or fact?

Do any of the statements linked below, which were well reported on, seem like productive ways to discuss immigration?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/donald-trump-announces-pr...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-things-don...

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/trump-slams-shithole-countr...

[bassman9000]

Guilt by association. Not an argument.

[s73v3r_]

Yes, it is, especially if you're not doing anything to make them not the loudest voices. If you don't like being associated with them, then you need to tell them off, and call them out when they say terrible things like that.

[dashundchen]

I'm not sure why that isn't an argument to be considered. The fact is these statements (referring to Mexicans as rapists and murders, "shithole countries") keep being made by the president, who historically has some sway over the legislative debate, especially when their party controls both chambers of congress.

I'd like to know, do you think these are reasonable, good-faith openers for debate? I don't, especially when so few on the right seem to be able to rebuke them and move on to a real discussion.

[bassman9000]

If being anti-illegal-immigration automatically makes you aligned with Trump, yes, it's a bad opener.

And still not an argument.

[aaomidi]

He's saying the definition of the word being used is currently changing.

When racist people start talking about illegal immigrants and they refer to all people of a specific race or nationality, they effectively change the definition of the word.

[s73v3r_]

When the leader of the movement (Trump) was describing the people coming over as "rapists, murders, and drug dealers", then yeah, I'm going to see that as anti-Mexican. And those that agree with his stance are, at the very least, not bothered with that extreme racism.

You want to change that? Then start shouting Trump and his ilk down when you hear stuff like that.

[gadders]

One distinction I like to draw as well is being anti-immigration doesn't mean you're anti-immigrant. Wanting immigration to be limited or criteria changed or whatever doesn't mean that you don't like the people that come to your country via these means.

[mozumder]

We're entering a neoliberal world of open borders and free trade, like Hillary Clinton wanted.

I, and many others, fully support that. It's best for the US economy going forward, since protectionism is a good way to wreck an economy.

I hope you are ready for it.