"If you hate what someone habitually does, you’re going to dislike them for doing it."
You only immigrate once. It's not something you are habitually doing.
"For many immigrants, sadly, immigration is their only realistic path to a decent life. If you oppose the immigration of such people, their well-being is not a high priority for you."
These people are not immigrants, they are foreigners. You oppose their goal to immigrate, but if they nevertheless do it, you basically embrace them.
There is really nothing absurd or analytically self-defeating about this moto - it's perfectly appropriate for this organization's mission. I would focus my rhetorical energies elsewhere.
I wouldn't be surprised if most people who think that way would consider illegal immigrants "habitual offenders" of a sort just by the fact of them continuing to break the law by staying. Hence the talks about mass deportation.
It’s not complicated, or “absurd.” The whole world wants to come to the U.S. By constraining immigration to legal channels, we can select the best candidates - those who bring material or intellectual capital. Plenty of countries do this, including Australia and Canada. Pretending it can’t be done, or makes no sense, is intellectually lazy at best.
There are different levels of "like". You can like someone, wish them well, and also only enjoy seeing them for 30 minutes once a month, max. Same with in-laws or migrants; it's not all-or-nothing.
I have a Swedish acquaintance who can loosely be described as anti-immigrant and pro-immigration; considers Swedes more functional than most any other people on the planet, and welcomes the opportunity to get a bigger labor low skilled force to free more Swedes up for high skilled and well remunerated work.
I feel like a better analogy is marginal - low debt is pro debt, or if you have 0 debt you could well be in favor of a mortgage or a car loan. Isn't this just saying people have some preferred level of immigration and are pro raising to the preferred level and conversely pro lowering to preferred level as needed?
Edit: I see better what you are saying on a reread, the only way to be in looking out for the welfare of a given person who wants to immigrate is to let them, the logcal thing to think if you feel an immigrant is positive value is to want more (until declining marginal returns) etc. So yes, their slogan doesn't make much sense on inspection even if "I want a small number of high quality immigrants over many low quality immigrants " might also be logical.
"If you hate what someone habitually does, you’re going to dislike them for doing it."
You only immigrate once. It's not something you are habitually doing.
"For many immigrants, sadly, immigration is their only realistic path to a decent life. If you oppose the immigration of such people, their well-being is not a high priority for you."
These people are not immigrants, they are foreigners. You oppose their goal to immigrate, but if they nevertheless do it, you basically embrace them.
There is really nothing absurd or analytically self-defeating about this moto - it's perfectly appropriate for this organization's mission. I would focus my rhetorical energies elsewhere.
I wouldn't be surprised if most people who think that way would consider illegal immigrants "habitual offenders" of a sort just by the fact of them continuing to break the law by staying. Hence the talks about mass deportation.
It’s not complicated, or “absurd.” The whole world wants to come to the U.S. By constraining immigration to legal channels, we can select the best candidates - those who bring material or intellectual capital. Plenty of countries do this, including Australia and Canada. Pretending it can’t be done, or makes no sense, is intellectually lazy at best.
Like food, but don't want to overeat - absurd
There are different levels of "like". You can like someone, wish them well, and also only enjoy seeing them for 30 minutes once a month, max. Same with in-laws or migrants; it's not all-or-nothing.
I have a Swedish acquaintance who can loosely be described as anti-immigrant and pro-immigration; considers Swedes more functional than most any other people on the planet, and welcomes the opportunity to get a bigger labor low skilled force to free more Swedes up for high skilled and well remunerated work.
I feel like a better analogy is marginal - low debt is pro debt, or if you have 0 debt you could well be in favor of a mortgage or a car loan. Isn't this just saying people have some preferred level of immigration and are pro raising to the preferred level and conversely pro lowering to preferred level as needed?
Edit: I see better what you are saying on a reread, the only way to be in looking out for the welfare of a given person who wants to immigrate is to let them, the logcal thing to think if you feel an immigrant is positive value is to want more (until declining marginal returns) etc. So yes, their slogan doesn't make much sense on inspection even if "I want a small number of high quality immigrants over many low quality immigrants " might also be logical.