So my girlfriend/myself and her (platonic) partner have a lot of different viewpoints. For starters, the partner, “Alex,” believes that undocumented immigrants are “illegal” and breaking the law, but my girlfriend and I think that immigrants of any kind make countries better. Alex hates ICE because Alex thinks they are at least too brutal, and Alex supports LGBT as a non-binary person but is a Christian with a lot of more “conservative” views (Alex isn’t COMPLETELY conservative, but their views could be considered that).
Imo these two viewpoints are not at odds with eachother. Killing a healthcare CEO is illegal and breaks the law, but it did measurably lead to short term improvements in healthcare.
If Alex is against undocumented immigrants, there is a root cause somewhere. Why are they only against undocumented immigrants instead of all immigrants? Are there any exceptions to that (perhaps, if they are fleeing for their life from gang violence or rampant food scarcity)?
If it is against all immigrants, then are there any exceptions to that? How deep does it go, do they also dislike immigrants from one state to another, or is it a cultural difference thing? Eventually they will reveal if they are personally (aka, irrationally) uncomfortable with something that you are okay with, or are uninformed/not looking through the same lens as you.
In this case, are they against breaking the law as a matter-of-fact or are they okay with a little bit of “lawbreaking” elsewhere? For example, taking a long restroom break while on company time and getting paid for that time? How about handing out water to people waiting to vote in a place where that is outlawed, like Georgia?
They might be a lot more supportive when nuance and humanity are thrown in to the picture. Laws aren’t necessarily just. If they think that they are and wont change their viewpoint, then it is probably okay to agree to disagree.
(imo)
I can speak to one part of it, I used to be one of those people who held the viewpoint that “Well, they are breaking the law to be here, aren’t they?”
Until I was set straight that simply being in the country without proper authorization is not actually a crime. Yes, some people might commit crimes in the course of coming here, like people who somehow evade border checks and make their way in without declaring themselves properly. But simply being undocumented is not a crime. Most people who are here without authorization came here legally (for instance, on a tourist or student visa), then simply didn’t leave when they were supposed to. That is not a crime.
And this is also the reason why immigration “courts” are not part of the judicial branch here, they are administrative courts under the Department of Justice. And that is because they don’t decide criminal matters.
But, explaining all this takes too long, and simply calling them “illegal” is much simpler, isn’t it?
I think both of these viewpoints miss the mark in the sense that they acknowledge the concept of citizenship as legitimate, as opposed to an egregious human rights violation and modern caste system.
Hmm, makes sense
Cultural-diversity PROVABLY increases patent-rate: immigration is, done right, economic gold.
Notice I said “done right”: Sweden’s doing it wrong, & getting highjacked.
Years ago, I read that in Germany, homeschooling was illegal…
& my animal-reaction against that was: “that is WRONG”.
through the years, though, seeing how cults use “education” as a means of highjacking countries … finally I understood the rightness of their position, ON CONDITION THAT the state-education was being done right.
( which it isn’t, here in the Americas, no idea how well the EU people are doing it )
Now I understand how excellent education is what is required, & it has to be state provided, & NOT dumbing-down, & not disempowering, & not one-size-fits-all ( obliterating diversity-of-potential for sake of institutional-comfort/establishment )…
Understand that Leninism & fascism both eradicate critical-thinking for sake of … imprint-reaction programming “education”, & that identifies the required-standard for education: 80% of the population NEEDS to be competent in critical-reasoning, consistently, XOR you’re sinking, as a country.
In the US, that isn’t doable: it’s a lost cause.
Now consider what’s required to deal with disagreements:
Ideology/prejudice holds that it is the PERSON that is the problem, & conforming/obedience is the only “right” way…
Critical-thinking, however, is issue centered, & it works best when the issue is diagrammed, visual-spacially, this-depends-on-that, this-choice-decides-between-these-2-paths, etc…
until the people considering the meaning can SEE the Pattern of its implications & consequences, see?
Issue-diagrams are THE required means for civilization to survive The Great Filter.
Get the animal-reacting programming out from the process, XOR we’re DarwinAward’d as a whole species, this century.
The evidence I linked-to, above, shows that cultural-diversity increases economic generation-of-inventions … but ideology doesn’t care what evidence says.
What makes some person “illegal”?
The fact that some legalism decided they’re illegal?
XOR their values?
XOR their religion?
XOR their skin-color?
XOR their gender?
XOR their ancestry?
XOR their location?
Here’s a question that your conservative friend will be dealing-with, soon:
Trump put-in-place a 2-sided “coin”, to activate later.
1-side of that “coin”, ICE, is nearly-completely in-place ( though the incinerators aren’t yet being built: those will begin being built when dictatorship’s instantiated ).
The de-naturalization law, however, he’s been just leaving alone…
Once dictatorship’s established ( probably the Insurrection Act, possibly Martial Law, if any terrorism hands him “jutification” ), then he’ll de-naturalize all non-Republicans.
Suddenly, ALL Democrats become “illegals”.
How does your conservative friend feel about that?
Right there, you’re going to face the difference between thinking vs ideological-programming.
I hope they think, but … it’s their choice.
All the Trump-supporters who have been deported ( US Citizens, green-card people, & illegal-immigrants too ) all are evidence that their view isn’t objective: they believed that the harm wouldn’t touch them, then it did.
Objectivity & correct-reasoning both are required, but so is worldview-adapting-to-evidence, NOT worldview-fighting-off-evidence-that-won’t-obey, right?
Try issue-diagramming, so the entire Pattern of each issue is visible, simultaneously, & see if better-quality communication can happen then.
Pencil & paper’s fine.
Each node/decision having “pros” closer to the goal, & “cons” on the other side of it, away from the goal…
& see how the decisions form a structure, complete with dependencies.
Maybe that’ll help clarify things…
_ /\ _
