Question: Is this statement racist?

[tk2kewl]

Is this statement racist?

"I am adamantly against illegal immigrants"

[asuhornets]

1. Let me guess:

Hillary said that...

[tk2kewl]

2. so if she did it's not?

[tk2kewl]

6. Maybe xenophobic instead?

[brush]

3. Yes, if it doesn't include Europeans or Canadians who overstay their visas.

[JackRiddler]

79. Hey I think we have a talking point here!

See, she's against illegal immigrants because there are rich Canadians and Europeans who would benefit.

[tk2kewl]

83. .

[Spider Jerusalem]

4. Clarification required

"I am against illegal immigration" is one thing, "I am against illegal immigrants" is another.

[tk2kewl]

5. "immigrants" - there is not a typo

[Agnosticsherbet]

64. See # 39 for my answer. There is not enough information in that statement to call it racist.

[tk2kewl]

67. i have since provided context

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1336463

[rurallib]

7. Please provide a link to this statement. Thank you

[tk2kewl]

8. does the answer depend on who said it?

[Betty Karlson]

9. In camp Weathervane? Of course it does.

It's all about her-her-her, not about actual issues or *gasp* principles.

[rurallib]

89. Nope, I would just like to verify it was said in that way

I could post any crazy shit and say guess who said it.
If you have no link then this is a bogus and bullshit post.

[tk2kewl]

90. the op was assuming anyone said it

Imo it's at least xenophobic regardless of speaker or context. .. but if you scroll down you will find the context and a link to video. I'd repost here but on phone its too much typing

[Tanuki]

22. I just tried to google it to find out the context, and all I could find were right-wing sources

including Brietbart, Daily Caller, and Town Hall. I'm guessing that's why there's no link!

[Alittleliberal]

88. How about the Audio

[morningfog]

10. Xenophobic and probably racist.

[tk2kewl]

11. thank you for a straight answer

[yawnmaster]

12. Not as a stand-alone statement. It depends on the context, of course. eom

[tk2kewl]

13. so it's ok to be adamantly against people?

immigrants are people... it's not really semantics as i see it anyway

[yawnmaster]

18. You asked if it was racist. and you are using a logical fallacy with this post. eom

[tk2kewl]

21. what is the logical fallacy?

maybe it's just xenophobic?

[yawnmaster]

43. You have committed a number of them...

all immigrants are people
against immigrants
Therefore against people --- this does not logically follow.

Also, you are using the fallacy of quoting out of context, in this case a type of strawman.
you supplied the single sentence with no context at all.

And then you argue based on that fallacy, thus committing another fallacy! the fallacy of argument from fallacy.

I suspect there are more.

[tk2kewl]

15. would you categorize it a xenophobic?

[yawnmaster]

19. Again, a rational person would say it depends on the context. against what for instance?

edit to add...
by rational person, what I mean is a person than engages in rational argument.

[tk2kewl]

27. it's not in the context of an argument. as a standalone statement, is it racist?

[yawnmaster]

48. Using standalone statements is not rational...it is a fallacy of quoting out of context...

you can't, rationally, call it racist or not racist based on the statement alone.

[tk2kewl]

71. in my opinion the statement w/o context carries a lot of negative connotation

people are not illegal.

i have since included the context of the statement here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511335821#post53

[yawnmaster]

74. You may not (or may) realize it but you are using context to form your opinion. Context as well...

as political position.

[tk2kewl]

76. what's your opinion now that you have some context?

[merrily]

44. Not really. Immigrants are not illegal. Undocumented, yes. Illegal, no.

Actions can violate the law, but you don't call the human illegal.

[LexVegas]

14. No. nt

[tk2kewl]

16. thank you

[NCTraveler]

17. Please provide a link. Thanks. nt.

[tk2kewl]

24. if i said it would it be racist?

[NCTraveler]

28. I don't understand the sentence you have presented.

"if i said it would it be racist?"

I don't get that at all. Providing a link would be racist?

I guess you should just keep going and asking for answers while providing no context. Is this a new context free debate style?

I would say voting against a pathway to citizenship multiple times is racist. No other context needed, right?

[tk2kewl]

77. here is the context

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511335821#post53

[dchill]

20. Pandering to bigots.

Is that racist?

[tk2kewl]

23. i think so

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Need to know the context...

I support a path to citizenship for all undocumented workers and their families who are here now. But there has to be an orderly process in place for people who want to come here in the future. In the absence of such a plan we have chaos.

[merrily]

46. Please see Reply 44.

[gollygee]

26. The phrase "illegal immigrants" isn't great

Human beings aren't illegal. The people hiring them are doing the really illegal thing. We always throw blame at poor people instead of the people exploiting them. How about "undocumented workers" or something instead?

[tk2kewl]

30. i'm not against undocumented workers or illegal immigrants

i admit to hiring day laborers without asking for their status as citizens

after hurricane sandy there was no waiting for licensed contractors, so i hired some nice guys who worked hard and got $150/day. i would have had some real problems on my hands without them

[PatrickforO]

29. No.

Most people in the 11 million 'illegals' here didn't sneak across the border. They came over on temporary work visas and outstayed the visas because they didn't want to leave their jobs.

I just don't see immigration as the huge, fearful issue Republicans paint it to be. These are people and this nation is build on immigrants. When my great great grandfather arrived in 1847, we didn't even have an immigration service or customs. The ship just dropped him off at the wharf in NYC.

While now we do need to impose some limits to immigration, this needs to be part of a saner bunch of policies the MIC and Wall Street don't like: promoting social and economic justice through foreign aid, cutting back the military, more public works projects and raising minimum wage. We also need to ENFORCE the laws we have because these businesses who hire illegals and pay 'consultants' to bring them in - they are the real problem. But I guess under Obama, we've gone to a 'net zero' new illegal immigrants, so we're just talking about the families already here. I'm mindful about that poor lady in the Las Vegas town hall whose husband had been BANNED for 10 years. What bullshit! That's just wrong.

[tk2kewl]

34. it sounds like you want a reasonable set of policies

but i will say that i am adamantly against referring to people as illegal. i think at best it's an accidental adoption of a mean spirited right wing frame

[Orsino]

31. Unless the speaker has some strange rules fetish, could be.

But the wording sounds like an objection to the people rather than their acts, so I'm going to guess we're seeing some xenophobia/racism, or pandering to xenophobes/racists.

I would hope that the speaker has since clarified, or that there's context to soften the hint of hate.

[tk2kewl]

37. i think i agree with you

[Orsino]

40. You must, of course, provide what context you can...

...after a sufficiently dramatic pause.

[Orsino]

45. Never mind. Found it. n/t

[tk2kewl]

66. please chime in again and let me know if you see it any differently

[Orsino]

68. Differently from whom or what?

Haven't listened to the audio, and Clinton's career is a much broader context, but the money quote here does sound rather pandery.

[tk2kewl]

69. differently from your own original response

[Orsino]

70. No.

I think I was sufficiently cautious.

[tk2kewl]

72. thanks

it is dangerous territory. i'm actually a little surprised i brought it up

[Orsino]

80. I do not like this quote...

...or other, similar that-was-then positions taken by our front-runner.

An adept politician ought to be able to talk to any audience, but the echoing of the hate speech irritates me. I don't believe she opposed illegal immigrants (or immigration) as adamantly as she tried to let on.

[tk2kewl]

82. you may be right, but her propensity to pander

to peoples darker sides is very troubling

[Orsino]

84. It's also, as far as I can tell, her second-greatest strength.

I won't expect her to abandon it.

[tk2kewl]

85. it's staking out territory on an issue from every angle

that's different from classic triangulation. she wants everyone to think she is on their side. it's why i don't trust what she says... she has likely said something different to some other constituency

[tk2kewl]

65. i provided a written context here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1336463

[jmg257]

32. Not without context - it sound like its bias against all people in the country illegally.nt

[tk2kewl]

35. bias against people

can you elaborate?

[jmg257]

42. Not sure how to elaborate, but..

"against illegal immigrants"

"illegal immigrants" would be people who are in the country illegally, entered in a way that violates the immigration laws.
It sounds like the speaker of your quote is against them.

More context or specifics would be needed to see if race is a factor, in lieu of that, sounds like they have bias against all people that are in/entered the country illegally.

[tk2kewl]

73. i have added the context

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511335821#post53

[jmg257]

86. I have sinced watched the video...why opposed to mentioning "Westchester",

"Brooklyn" and "Bronx", "Suffolk Cnty"?

Anyway, in context, VERY likely the ethnicity of the people she is talking about is predominately (if not totally) Hispanic of Mexican descent.

She seems to have bias towards this ethnic group if they are in the country illegally.

[tk2kewl]

87. was intended to keep it nuetral and not make it obvious *who* said it

[merrily]

47. Immigrants in the country illegally is different from illegal immigrants or, worse, illegals.

Please see Reply 44.

[jmg257]

55. Thanks! I see that on wiki...

"Illegal immigration is the migration of people across national borders in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country. Some countries have millions of illegal immigrants..."

"Terminology
There have been campaigns to discourage the use of the term 'illegal immigrant' in many countries since 2007, generally based on the argument that the act of immigration may be illegal in some cases, but the people themselves are not illegal. In the United States, a "Drop the I-Word" campaign was launched in 2010 to advocate the use of terms such as "undocumented immigrants" or "unauthorized immigrants" to refer to the foreign nationals who reside in a country illegally.[6]

News associations that have discontinued or discourage the use of the adjective "illegal" to describe people include the US Associated Press,[7] UK Press Association, European Journalism Observatory,[8] European Journalism Centre,[9] Association of European Journalists, Australian Press Council,[10] and Australian Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance.[11]

In contrast, in some contexts the term "illegal immigrants" is shortened to "illegals".[12][13][14][15]

Other terms that do not describe people directly, are not necessarily affected by this argument. For example, Associated Press still uses the term "illegal immigration" to an action of entering or residing in a country in violation of civil or criminal law...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration#cite_note-1

[tk2kewl]

59. that is what i said here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511335821#post34

[CharlotteVale]

33. Sure sounds like a dog whistle to me.

[hifiguy]

36. Not necessarily.

[tk2kewl]

38. can you elaborate?

i respect your opinion quite a bit

[hifiguy]

41. I'd need some more context to figure out what is really being said.

Not necessarily including the name of the speaker.

[merrily]

49. Please see Reply 44.

[hifiguy]

52. I think I agree with your post, merrily.

[merrily]

56. Everyone I know uses "undocumented immigrants."

Immigration can be illegal, not the human.

I honestly had no idea this was an unknown or controversial thing, esp. among Democrats.

Thanks, hifi guy.

[tk2kewl]

53. here is a quote:

"I am, you know adamantly against illegal immigrants. Certainly we've got to do more at our borders and people have to stop employing illegal immigrants. come up to [a place], go out to [some other places], stand on the street corners in [some inner city places], you're going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work."

[hifiguy]

58. I favor more legal immigration, though not unlimited,

and don't particularly like the tone of that quote at all. So I will come down against the statement in the OP.

I concur with merrily, with the disclaimer that it sounds more nativist than anything else. It also seems to be stoking paranoia given that there are so many fewer undocumented people crossing the border now than a few years back.

I was trained as a lawyer, so I do tend to split hairs.

[tk2kewl]

61. thanks... if you wish to get a better feel for the tone

it begins at ~5:18 of the video in this OP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280126280

[Agnosticsherbet]

39. No, the statement is too broad. The person may be racist, have an economic reason to be against

undocumented workers (illegal aliens), or believe that the law must be supreme.

I oppose the policy of using undocumented workers as a means to keep low wages and improve a businesses bottom line. Without the systematic used of undocumented workers (illegal aliens) it would be necessary to use citizen labor. This practice is common in agriculture and the construction industry. In the late 80's, I had a friend who installed Sheetrock walls in houses for $48.00 an hour. By the early 90's he could not get work because construction companies hired undocumented workers (illegal aliens) for less than minimum wage.

Am I a racist, I don't think so.

Now, if people are against illegal aliens from Mexico, South America, Islamic countries, or Africa because they are of a darker ethnic origin, that would be racist.

[merrily]

51. The term itself is horrid. Please see Reply 44.

[tk2kewl]

75. context added

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511335821#post53

[pkdu]

50. Youtube says "Paid for by the Republican National Committee.."

figures.

But at least they included the next few sentences .

[merrily]

54. I'm stunned. I assumed that everyone has known for years not to say illegals or illegal immigrants.

Please see Reply 44.

No one I know uses either of those terms.

[loyalsister]

57. It is xenophobic on it's face

But when you consider that South American immigration currently dominates that conversation, it is quite clearly a dog whistle.

[tk2kewl]

63. thank you.

yes it is clearly xenophobic. and frankly in its full context i think it's worse.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280126280

[azmom]

60. Bernie uses the term aspiring americans.

I saw several Dreamers using that term too. I like it.

[tk2kewl]

62. he has a heart of gold

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. Xenophobic, pandering and likely a dog whistle to go well with racists

and yes I got the context... wow

[Shandris]

81. No. It means you're pro-law.

Unless, of course, you meant 'against' as in 'hey lets go kill them!' or some other nonsuch, at which point it's not really the same question.