510
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2025
510 points (99.2% liked)
politics
26764 readers
2409 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Send this to everyone who says people have nothing to worry about if they're in the country legally
She's wasn't even "in the country legally" she is a fucking natural born citizen. She committed the crime of brownness
So if asked "was she in the country legally" you'd answer "no, because she was a citizen"? That makes zero sense to my autistic brain. I'd answer "yes, because she was a citizen"
If someone asked you to describe your immigration status, would you say “I’m in the country legally” if you were born there?
Subtext exists, and is pretty important to recognize when it’s used for propaganda.
I understand you weren’t using it that way on purpose.
I'd actually probably freeze up because I have trouble answering questions with false assumptions, the assumption here being I'm an immigrant. If someone asked "are you in the country legally", I'd say yes and potentially not even realize they think I'm an immigrant
The subtext works both ways, though. The question is malformed in my example because it implies an incorrect fact, and you rightly bristle at it because of that. But the statement “she’s here legally” is similarly implying a subtly different question that isn’t being asked, and then answering that question instead of the real one. So it made me bristle in the same way. And it’s a technique that’s often used intentionally to dishonestly reframe conversations, especially around contentious topics. The hostile responses seem to be incorrectly (but unfortunately reasonably these days) assuming this intent.
Unfortunately, the question was raised by ICE about whether the woman was in the country legally or not. It shouldn't have been in question, but it was. ICE detained her claiming she was in the country illegally, thereby raising the question was she there illegally or legally and the answer is she was in the country legally because she was a citizen. I just didn't think I needed to specify her being a citizen, I thought all that mattered to the discussion was whether her presence was legal or illegal.
With my autism, receiving a reply that said "she wasn't in the country legally" because she was a citizen was genuinely confusing. Are citizens not to be classified as legally present when ICE asks if they're legally present or not?
A person who is physically present in the country is either there legally or illegally. It seems you object to my phrasing because, as a natural born citizen, there shouldn't have been a need to distinguish if she was there legally or not. But sadly it was in question, shouldn't have been but was.
Yes, natural born citizens are legal residents
No they are not. "Legal resident" is a specific legal classification different from "citizen." You are confusing the dictionary definition of words with legal definitions.
But it was legal for her to be in the country. Citizens are in the country legally.
How can she not be called a legal resident? She is a resident and it is legal for her to be
“Legal resident” is an open compound word spelled with a space, not an adjective modifying a noun. An elementary school at the top of a hill is not a “high school” even though it is high and also a school. This is because “high school” is a word that means specifically secondary school (in North America at least), which excludes primary/elementary schools. Likewise in the United States, a “legal resident” refers to a non-citizen lawful permanent resident, not just any person who resides in a country legally.
You’re right. Here's the best image I could find explaining the issue of the semantics here:
collapsed inline media
Are both residents and citizens legal residents? Sure. In the context of immigration law the citizen would probably only be described as such unless the context made it clear someone was using more of the dictionary definition than the legal definition as the parent commenter alluded to.
That chart doesn't include "Naturalized Citizenship." A naturalized citizen (for example, Arnold Schwarzenegger or Melania Trump) was born elsewhere but has been vetted and tested and taken an oath to become a citizen. They can vote, and serve on a jury, and work a federal job, and be Governor of California, but they can't be President.
And now Trump is trying to revoke the citizenship of all the ones he doesn't like. He's also trying to revoke the birthright citizenship of the children of immigrants.
So if someone asked you if she was a legal resident, you'd say no?
I'm autistic. I mean exactly what I say. I didn't think stating the fact that she was in the country legally somehow implied she was an immigrant. Besides, my point was that in general people who are there legally are being detained unjustly, that applies to all legal residents, both immigrants and citizens
A legal resident and a citizen, in the context of immigration, are entirely different things.
It does actually imply she is an immigrant.
Saying "legal resident" implies "green card holder", not "citizen".
My original comment didn't say legal resident, it said in the country legally. Citizens in the country are in the country legally
Your second comment did, and the first has the same implication.
Take the L. You are incorrect.
How is it incorrect to say citizens are there legally?
I wasn't solely referring to her, I was talking in general about people who are in the country legally. To you that doesn't include citizens?
It doesn't have the same implication, not to me. I explained that I'm literal minded because I'm autistic. It's legal for her to be in the country, she's in the country legally. Not hard to understand. She's either there legally or not there legally.
Only if you ignore all context.
Your numerous replies show you understand this. I'm going to be done chatting with you about this now.
Enjoy your day.
In context, I was referring to all people who are in the country legally. Does that not include citizens to you?
Goodbye.
When you still reply after saying you wouldn't, it only encourages people to keep replying
Sending you some solidarity, fellow autist. I understood what you were getting at. 🤜🤛
Thank you. It is so frustrating to be misunderstood. And people have even downvoted comments where I explained that I have communication difficulties because I'm autistic. That kinda hurts. Where's the compassion for people who are different?
Surely the phrase "people who are in the country legally" should be understood in this context to include citizens. ICE is detaining even people who are in the country legally. That means citizens as well as legal immigrants. And people think that's somehow incorrect? Like the dichotomy of legal vs illegal only applies to immigrants? ICE accused the woman of being in the country illegally, she was in the country legally by virtue of being a citizen. It's frustrating because some people seem to think I thought the woman was an immigrant. Admittedly, I also seem to have misunderstood the intent of the comment that started this but again, I interpret things differently sometimes because of my autism.
No, I just have a problem with being contradicted when I'm right. Was she in the country? Yes. Was it legal for her to be in the country? Yes. How was she not "in the country legally"? I never said she was from elsewhere
I was agreeing with and elevating the point you were making by stating that beyond being here legally, it is impossible for her to be here illegally because she was born here. Jesus fucking Christ why do you need to split every single hair!? And you can edit a comment when you come up with something else to say, you can quit replying twice and three times.
Hey, FreshParsnip, I'd just like to point out that JoeBigelow wasn't really contradicting your original comment (the one I'm replying to) but rather they were amplifying it. Their point was to emphasize the racism of ICE against her "crime of brownness."
Not only was she "in the country legally," she also has the further rights and responsibilities of being a citizen. For instance, she can vote for for President. Beyond that, being a birthright citizen, she can run for the office and BE President.
A "legal resident," according to federal statutes, is defined as a person who has met certain legal requirements and received papers entitling them to live here, but cannot legally vote, or serve on a jury, or some other rights reserved for citizens.
JoeBigelow could definitely have used better syntax, or stuck a "just" in there after "even".
And your original point, about ICE being a danger to everyone regardless of how many rights they're supposed to have, is perfect. They're fascist thugs.
But your anger is misdirected. Save it for the real enemy.
And now you should minimize Joe's comment, because that thread is actively painful to read. This is a fine summary and all you want to know about that comment chain.
Send them this too: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment-873a45bc58de9e92773f554bf5bba9a0