"Kidnapping people, separating them from their family, locking them in prison and then exiling them from the country? That's a horrible thing to do! Unless of course they happen to have not done some paperwork correctly and were born on the other side of this line we drew in the dirt, then its just common sense." /s
this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2026
620 points (99.1% liked)
Political Memes
12383 readers
2143 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Hell even if you did all the paperwork correctly, as an asylum seeker you would have a small window of 5 years where.
- If you leave the US your process is cancelled.
- If you don't show up to the 3 random court calls in time your process is cancelled.
- Court takes place in the USA.
- You are not a legal citizen in the USA until you finish all the courts.
Additionally.
- You aren't allowed to have a job until you pay a fee and wait 6-12 months for the EAD.
- You still pay taxes and can't vote.
And if you do show up on time, ICE might just arrest you at the court appearance and sell you into slavery!
The leading reason to oppose immigration is racism. But people are embarrassed to admit it. Nobody opposes anything because it's illegal.
You can force anyone to admit they don't care about what's legal by simply asking what if we changed the law?
I both love and hate asking this question to anti-immigration chuds.
100% of the time, the first answer is "Well it wouldn't be legal, we need laws to keep people out."
And then you go "Okay but what if they DID legalize it, would you be accepting or not?"
And then it's 45 minutes of arguing with someone about what a "hypothetical" is and what it means to imagine something, because they don't actually have an answer, the choices are to say they will oppose the system and oppose the government or that they would be fine if the law changed, either way makes them look bad by their own flimsy values, so they will stick to spinning around the definitions of words and what's "real" or not.
You might enjoy the phrase "Constitutional border protection." The US had no immigration laws whatsoever for nearly a century, and none are in the Constitution, so it's fun to push the same button that right-wingers do with the Second Amendment, but for immigration.
I really don't get our country.
"We found this nation to welcome the world's masses, anyone seeking freedom and democracy, we will create the jewel of the world everyone will want to be part of!"
"Wait no, we meant like... some of you, sometimes. We're good now, yeah, there's tons of space left and land that we ahem own now, but we like it kinda empty so we can film truck commercials in the mountains."
The Constitution is not the totality of law nor was it ever intended to be. It is the guide rails that establishes the scope that the rest of the legal system exists within.
How would framing immigration in comparison to the Bill of Rights even push the same buttons as the Second Amendment? The Constitution grants Congress the authority and requirement to protect the country and to set naturalization law, which is immigration. There is, as you said, no constitutional right to become an American citizen.
Piss off right-wingers with Due Process, because Constitutionally everyone on US soil or in US custody for any reason, and that means Everyone with a capital E, is covered under Due Process.
Shouldn't that be an easy question to answer though?
If a supermajority left-wing government changed immigration law to free and unrestricted passage across borders, making anyone who sets foot on US soil is legally a resident if they wish and further entitled to a pathway citizenship if they want it, then that would be the law and must be followed.
Anyone would still be free to run their campaign on changing immigration law back, or to something else. Economic and societal performance under that hypothetical law change would determine if a supermajority of "change immigration law to XYZ" then gets elected to do that.
There is always a possibility that putting no or too few limits on immigration causes irreversible damage to a country before course correction can happen, but the same is true for extreme polarization and unresolvable political divide.
I used to have that perspective too.
In my older age I'm completely in favor of an entirely borderless world. I know that's unrealistic in our lifetimes but I understand a lot more now about how much of our actual division and fear of "flooding people" in one direction or another is entirely socially constructed and cemented by capitalism, so while I know that we currently live in a world of borders, my firm belief is that people should be free go where they want, and governments need to learn to respond. Got too many people flooding in from country X? Lets go see what's happening in country X that's making people leave and fix the situation. The only time you should look at your neighbor's plate is to make sure they have enough.
When you say that you don't want "too many" people from other places, you're saying that your own value as a person is higher than theirs, that your culture is more important, that you're too scared to adapt to change that will happen anyway. And yeah, this has become policy now so here we are.
I am less and less compromising on this attitude too, because in my decades, every time we cede too much ground to conservatism, their fear and anxiety towards change turns the compromise into walls and barbed wire all over again.
I am not going to expect us to get that world overnight, but I will always advocate for fewer immigration controls and greater international support and partnerships, even if we go back to how it was in whatever years when the markets were flourishing and you could enter a country with a smile and a nod, I still will push for us to tear down barriers between building much larger communities.
So yeah, we will have borders and checks and security and all that lip service to logically unnecessary systems from thousands of years, but I think we need to keep the end-goal of not needing it as our collective, shared value.
A peaceful and united world without borders would be awesome. I wish I could be as optimistic as you, but when we have so many examples of one culture completely wiping out another I can't get there. Tibet is a "recent" example, all Native cultures in North and South America are more. Most of Africa as well.
I do think that not all cultures are equal because all cultural institutions are not equal. Child marriage, caste, women's rights, LGBT rights, etc. are components that make up cultures, and everyone thinks their culture's interpretation of these is superior and should be enforced as the norm. This will be THE blocker for a united one world society without borders.
Looking into why there are too many people coming from country X to fix those problems, no matter how generously you are trying to make sure their plate has enough, will invariably run into cultural clashes with fixes. International solidarity and support should increase, but at what point is that cultural colonialism? Can for example Sharia Law coexist perfectly with liberalism? Can a society made with conflicting ideas about autonomy exist?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Wanda Sykes put it best:
"If someone broke into my house... and vacuumed?
*shrug* same time next week?"
load more comments
(3 replies)
A huge factor in my change from my conservative upbringing was when I escaped the family cult compound and got my first job working in a warehouse with a lot of illegal hires. I learned spanish, I had my lunch sabotaged with chili peppers, I got in insulation-foam swordfights with guys my age who were here in the US working 12 hours a day to support their families and start new lives.
I made friends, I learned spanish, I laughed and cried with my fellow humans from far away places.
My boss was a right-wing narcissist who enjoyed torturing these folks with withheld pay and criminal working conditions, and would sometimes call immigration services himself as punishment. I remember coming to work and people I knew were suddenly gone.
edit: the final straw was watching innocent people die in a war the US started for made-up reasons. (This one was Iraq, the second one.) Not just the civilians that were getting blown to pieces by ooh-rah US power while FOX news cheered on, but also I had friends who went to that war and came back in bags, or couldn't deal with the things they saw and ended their own lives. The lack of compassion from the right was outright evil. This isn't the first dance we've had with evil in the US. I've been falling further and further to the left ever since.
Native Americans have entered the chat
Companies hire them illegally and nobody goes after them! Why aren't we enforcing the law for them!? Until you are willing to go out into the fields and pick crops for poverty wages, or advance legislation to enable them to do it legally, STFU about illegal immigration...
To be fair, many against illegal immigration push for going after companies who hire illegal immigrants. A lot of those many would prefer to go after the employers first, because you solve a problem at the source and not by treating symptoms. E-Verify and employment law are supposed to do that, if there is no economic incentive then most illegal immigration stops.
As for seasonal migrant workers, there are laws enabling them to do it legally. They need desperately need to be updated and expanded, but the legal groundwork is there.
Based Cozmo frfr
(His creator is not very based tho)
Really? Huh, I hadn't expected that, and I hadn't heard. What happened?
Hartman is an evangelical grifter.
Least morally bankrupt Nickelodeon creator
So they're trespassing? Jesus has something to say about that
For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Want to know what being "illegal" constitutes as? It's a civil misdemeanor. That's it. It's a low offense. But the system is made so you either get ground to a pulp to get in or sneak in then deal with the system afterwards.
Conservative: “We just think that laws should matter. These people are here in violation of the law.”
Liberal: “Our immigration laws are a mess though and don’t meet anyone’s needs. Don’t you think we should overhaul that whole system?”
Conservative: “Sure. We can agree on that. But before we talk about new laws, we have to obey the laws we have.”
Liberal: “Let me get this straight: we should take a law everyone agrees is totally broken, go out and fully implement it, by force if necessary, and THEN fix it?”
Conservative: “You don’t understand. This is about rule of law. You either respect the laws of this country or you don’t.”
Liberals: “Laws like Roe v. Wade?”
Conservative: “Well that’s not a law that’s a court ruling.”
Liberal: “I see. So that one loses on a technicality. But a completely broken set of laws gets you out into the streets, up in arms?”
Conservative: “Here’s the part where you call me a racist.”
Liberal: “…”
Conservative. “We just think that laws should matter.”
There's a huge difference between hating an individual, and wanting the rule of law respected, I think. What's going on now is hatred and destruction, which abuses the name of the law. But saying, "this person is self-evidently in this place illegally, they should be tried and ejected", is not hateful. You can respect a person while saying they shouldn't be in a place.
Too bad I have this moral obligation to disobey stupid laws.
stupid
What does "false consensus" mean?
load more comments
(2 replies)
I don't believe in borders man
wanting the rule of law respected
As an American, I would be mortified to use the phrase "rule of law" outside of a joke.
Any law that criminalizes behavior that does not cause anyone harm is unjust, and we therefore have a moral duty to disobey it. Your insistence that "respecting the rule of law" is not hateful is no different from using "just following orders" as an excuse for immoral actions. You cannot be seriously suggesting that it is respectful to tell a person they don't belong in this country because they don't have the proper paperwork. Fuck borders, fuck ICE, CBP, DHS, and fuck the rule of law. I refuse to accept inhumane treatment simply because the law demands it.
The problem is that even then it's such a tiny "infraction," so victimless, that going out of the way to enforce it is fucking insane. It's like if we shot all jaywalkers dead on sight. It's like if we arrested everyone who ever went over the speed limit and kept them in jail for 90 days waiting for a hearing.
If someone is visibly committing a dangerous crime, and it turns out they should be deported, that's one thing. Breaking into people's fucking houses, fucking taking people while they are in the process of going to the courthouse to go through the legal immigration process, dragging people out of fucking cars, none of this is necessary, and moreover, it's fucking reprehensible.
"But dey broke da lawwww" a kid who smoked a joint doesn't deserve the electric chair bro. And they are fucking executing white, born-here American citizens in the streets in broad daylight for NOTHING.
So in closing, fuck that, fuck all of that.
Good points. I just wanted to add even Pre-Trump the fact people need to go to court to argue their right to live in a country is stupid.
The immigration process should be nothing but a security check and be given ID in a civilized society
yea, the problem is that it’s a shitty, hateful law that is enforced for shitty, hateful reasons
What would happen if there was suddenly no border policy whatsoever in the US? That anyone could come in at any time they like and stay as long as they like.
load more comments
(2 replies)
"You can respect a person while saying they shouldn't be in a place."
"This person is self-evidently in this place illegally, they should be tried and ejected"
On behalf of the queer community this sounds really bad. I've seen similar rhetorical lines a lot, typically to defend the removal of queer media and other forms of expression.
I have never seen these be used to argue anything good.
There is a difference between the more liberal "enlightened" enforcement and the more brutal (and much worse) fascist enforcement. But the liberal apparatus (while comparatively considerably better) was still never just
Idk...you could pay me to do it. I'd just be "quiet quitting".
I can oppose illegal migration/support going through proper channels while opposing military action.
The leading reason for hiring illegally is to exploit people in an undesirable position. In my country it's the leading reason legally as well.
But they’re here illegally!
While doing everything they can to make it as difficult and expensive as possible yet enjoying the economic benefits of exploited (illegal) labor.
It always seemed obvious to me that the real criminals here are the owner class who are exploiting undocumented immigrants. They didn't want to give amnesty because that would mean they would have to follow rules such as minimum wage, etc. They have a business incentive to keep these people "illegal". Of course these people overwhelmingly vote Republican.
Also, if conservatives don't want refugees here, perhaps they could stop supporting US interventions in Latin America? Oh, and why not do something about climate change too because that will create even more refugees?
I've had people complain to me about how many Puerto Ricans there are in the area... my friend, you realize that Puerto Rican are Americans and that is because of imperialism right? The people of that island likely didn't ask to be colonized by Spain and then ceded to the US.
view more: next ›