Ask Lemmy

Not intrinsically, but pretty commonly it is driven by bigotry over culture, religion or skin colour.

You know all the people up in arms over the wave of Ukrainian refugees? Oh wait, there's nothing of the sort? Well, there you go.

Every time I meet someone who opposes illegal immigration but claims to support legal immigration I ask one question. If the law changed so that all immigration was legal, you'd be fine with it, right?

Nobody so far has been fine with it. I conclude that the question of legality is a dodge for people who are embarrassed about their actual motives.

No, but it is racist to assume that a person is an illegal immigrant based solely on their race.

Likewise, i think there is a deeper connection being made, that theres an assumption that an illegal immigrant is a bad person, and i also do not think that is a valid assumption.

To know if a person is a bad person, you have to know the person.

It's racist to use immigration law to maintain a racial underclass. For instance, many essential agricultural workers in the US do not have access to the courts or law enforcement to protect their rights. If a citizen assaults one of these workers, the worker cannot safely report the assault to law enforcement without being punished for doing so.

I am yet to hear a justification for opposing illegal immigration that doesn't tie back into racism or racial prejudice, let alone a justification that actually makes sense if you take it apart.

Someone prove me wrong, and I'll change my mind.

No human is illegal

I feel like "illegal" immigration as a concept is inherently racist and being upset and anyone for not coming over the "right" way is also racist.

No, not on it's own, but it's rarely on its own. In the US opposition to illegal immigrants and racism tracks nearly one to one.

One could imagine a country where illegal immigration itself was a distinct problem, where the society was balanced in such a way that legal immigration was at an optimal rate and additional people coming into the country had downsides that outstripped the positives, when though, for example, the immigrants were of the same culture/class/standing as the existing citizens.

The US, on the other hand, is nowhere near an optimal legal immigration rate, even though we benefit pretty significantly from both legal and illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants, for example, contribute significantly to the economy while not drawing 'as many' benefits away. Overwhelmingly the actual arguments against illegal immigration are grounded in cultural differences and language and, to put it simply, the desire for one class to want a reason to consider themselves better than another class by an easily recognizable yardstick.

Is your opposition to ilegal immigration based on race or skin color?

If the answer is yes then, yes, you are racist. If the answer is no, then no, you are not racist.

No, race doesn't have anything to do with it.

If you oppose illegal immigration, though, you should ask yourself why.

If it's solely that you don't want people coming over to your nation illegally, then it's very likely that they aren't able to because of how complicated and exclusive your nation's immigration system is.

I wouldn't say it's racist to oppose illegal immigration, but it makes me suspect you might be and also makes me think you have very little empathy.

I feel like if you're asking then you're searching for validation. A sort of way to not feel guilty about being racist. Tell me, what bothers you most about immigrants? This country wouldn't exist if it weren't for immigrants

In the US and many other countries, immigration violations are not crimes. Therefore, those immigrants are not illegal. It is actually a civil infraction, like a parking ticket... So, your question reveals hidden xenophobic bias. That alone is immoral. Is it racist in itself? Probably. It is very difficult to be xenophobic without also being racist.

no.

however, it is racist to oppose them because they're not your race.

It really depends on why you oppose them. There is no real answer to that question.

Yes.

Just ask yourself why there is even a barrier to entry in the first place. Prejudices and paranoia.

Not really, but most people's reasoning is racist.

Short answer yes with an if. The long answer is no with a but.

I'd say it's racist if someone is complaining about illegal immigrants alongside a general contempt of 'foreigners' and not paying attention to the details of why it's illegal for them to migrate the way they did and what options are available for legal migration.

It's not racist to be opposed to those who are in violation of the law, as that is not a racial or ethnic classification. But it is important to be inquisitive as to why the law is the way that it is, and be willing to consider the possibility that just because something is against the law does not mean that it should be. Law has long been used as a tool of systemic oppression and racism, as well as many other horrific abuses inflicted on people.

Considering the high proportion of the population with ancestors who were illegal immigrants, there's also a question of what you consider as acceptable.

If illegal immigrants in the US are all white Christian beautiful women filling jobs that locals don't want to do in healthcare, is it different than Pedro from Honduras who works in construction but looks like he could be a drug mule.

Swede here, absolutely not, around 2015 or so we got hit by the mass migration wave, there were plenty of documented cases of migrants throwing away or destroying their documents to try and claim refugee status when they clearly didn't need it, thus taking spots from actual refugees.

There were also real refugees who did this, they registered in Greece, Spain, Italy or other southern Europe country, but then they kept going north, trying to get to a better country. At that point you are no longer a refugee, but an economic migrant.

I 100% oppose these migrants.

The dumb thing is that the EU would distribute refugees throughout the union, just because you registered in Spain, didn't mean you had to stay there, you would stay for an interim period and be distributed to your proper host country.

I have zero issues with migrants/refugees who come the legal route, learn the language, work, and integrate in the culture.

Most of the current immigration laws are due to racist intent. In the 80s they didn't like how many Mexicans were coming across the border each year to do farm work. The workers would come, stay while there was work to be had, and then return home. When new laws were enacted making it harder for workers to get across the border, there came a class of people that would sneak the workers across. And this came with a fee from the workers. Now it costs them more to get here, so they need to stay longer to make up the money. It became easier to just find a place to live in the US all year round.

The US needs the Mexican workers. To simultaneously demand help, and punish them for showing up to help is dumb, and I suspect fueled by racist thoughts. The immigrants boost our economy, help feed our population, and are less likely to break laws that citizens. There's a whole (probably many) book about it, and it's even in comic form. https://www.amazon.com/Open-Borders-Science-Ethics-Immigration/dp/1250316960

While we need to know who is coming across our border to prevent spys and terrorists, the current laws make those entrants easier to hide, as there is now a whole industry to sneak people across.

I wouldn't say it's considered to be racist to oppose outlaws who came here without the proper paperwork, visa, etc.

I worry a lot of it is human trafficking or at least human trafficking lite. A lot of employers really like having employees they don't actually have to pay properly or obey workplace safety and other protections for, and who will be afraid to speak up about fraud and other illegal practices.

But to me that would be easily solved if we only made it illegal to hire people without a permit, but never deport or otherwise penalize the workers. And publicize that heavily. So if you don't have a permit and your boss is abusing you, just call the hotline on the billboard and let us know and we'll arrest them and you can go find another sketchy employer and tell on them too when they piss you off.

No one would be hiring people without permits if there were actual consequences for the employer. We wouldn't be stuck with trying to figure out how to deport people and whatnot. They'd only be able to hire people the law is already protecting as workers. but nobody actually wants to hold rich people accountable for having caused all this trouble in the first place.

The term is a little racist. It is like defining someone as an excon, or ex convict, rather than someone who has spent time in prison. Or as disabled rather than a person with a disability. You define people as a simple thing rather than as a whole person with a feature. It flattens people into less than they are and makes them less than human.

So opposing people who flaunt the rules is a separate question to opposing illegal immigrants. You don't dismiss their humanity, you don't discard them, you say "You breeched the rules and here are the consequences."

The second layer is whether you believe in the rules. Do you believe people from other countries are fundamentally different to you? Are they less because of where they come from? If so, yes, racist. If not, then probably not.

Not all opposed to illegal immigration are racist, but (obviously) all racist are against illegal immigration (And immigration in general).

Maybe. Depends. It's complicated.

Not really, but the racist part is opposing measures making it achievable and even simple to do so legally. Then all the terrible treatment along the way.

Usually, yes
Because usually the reason they have to be illegal is racist, and the person complaining about illegal immigration is fine with it.

There could be many reasons to be opposed to it, not necessarily racist ones.

You can support the rule of law - that's not racist. You may want to support legal immigration, while closing illegal ways that commonly lead to abuse of migrants - this is straight up progressive. You may consider illegal immigrants more dangerous as they didn't go through screening procedures - that's up for debate, but not necessarily racist, etc. And generally, if you consider that same rules should apply to everyone, this is not racist.

However, it's worth considering the laws of your area and the way they can affect legal migration. Going against illegal immigration and at the same time voting to complicate legal one, especially in relation to certain nationals, likely signals of racism (or, rather, ultranationalism). It is one thing to want to make the process transparent and legal and the other - to build more barriers.

Often people who oppose illegal immigration do seem to also be racists.

I think if someone says they oppose illegal immigration and also genuinely feels they have done serious introspection and feel they are not racist, they might benefit from asking themselves what they dislike about illegal immigration and see if those things actually have the negative impacts they fear or if the negative impacts they see are but drops in the bucket compared to other sources of similar impacts.

No

Nothing makes you more racist than having a legal alibi to hide your racism.

This question reeks of asking if keeping slaves when they were "legal" racist? If it's legal, what's the big deal?

It's not racist to take issur with illegal immigration.

It's just not right to oppose the immigrants as people, or say that their situation is the result of some moral failing. These people make the best decisions for themselves and their families.

It becomes racist when you start attributing characteristics or behaviors to their race as fundamental attributes.

First off: technically, almost everyone opposes illegal immigration—the issue is whether it should be reduced by deporting undocumented immigrants, or by changing the laws to legalize more of them. (The exceptions who do support illegal immigration as-is are generally employers who exploit immigrants.)

Second: If the current law is racist, then supporting increased enforcement is racist while supporting reform (probably) isn’t. (And I would describe a law as racist if it disproportionately impacts racial minorities when alternative laws with an equivalent effect on public safety would not.)