XPost: alt.atheism, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.republican   
   XPost: alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.politics.trump, alt.religio   
   .christian.roman-catholic   
   XPost: alt.politics, alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: js@phendrie.con   
      
   When ideologues on the left and the right want to make a case for why the   
   government really needs to crack down on something, they rhetorically elevate   
   the offense. One example from the left is the desire to impose speech codes or   
   hate speech laws. “Words are violence,” some argue. After all, being rude   
   can   
   cause “stress” or “harm,” just like wielding a knife or gun.   
      
   The same lame bombast also infects the right. “It is an invasion, that’s   
   not an   
   overstatement,” Fox News host Tucker Carlson told his viewers last month,   
   referring to illegal migration. The purpose of these rhetorical maneuvers is   
   clear. If words are violence, then we should treat insults like assaults. If   
   illegal migration is an invasion, border crossers should be treated like an   
   enemy in a war.   
      
   I don’t care much for politically correct language. I avoid the euphemism   
   treadmill. Whether you call people who violate immigration law “illegal   
   aliens,”   
   “undocumented noncitizens,” or “unauthorized immigrants” doesn’t   
   make much   
   difference to me (or the law). But illegal migration is not an invasion any   
   more   
   than words are violence. The problem is the inaccuracy, not the politics.   
      
   The Constitution requires the federal government to protect against an   
   “invasion”—what every court that has reviewed the question has   
   interpreted to   
   mean an “armed hostility from another political entity.” James Madison   
   labeled   
   invasion a “foreign hostility” or attack by one state on another, and the   
   Constitutional Convention debates connected the power to repel invasions with   
   the power to raise armies. All the widely used English dictionaries from the   
   Founding confirm this understanding, and of course, the other uses of invasion   
   in the Constitution have the same meaning.   
      
   Using the word invasion as a substitute for illegal migration is both offensive   
   to anyone who’s lived through a real one and insulting to the intelligence of   
   everyone else. If you can’t tell the difference between 100,000 Germans   
   arriving   
   in Paris at the head of an army in 1940, and 100,000 Germans arriving in Paris   
   today as tourists, it’s time to crack open a history book, not opine on   
   immigration policy. Perhaps because they know the comparison to an invasion is   
   so weak, nativists like former President Donald Trump also promulgate the   
   risible conspiracy theory that foreign governments are “sending” the   
   immigrants   
   here.   
      
   https://reason.com/2021/08/27/illegal-immigration-isnt-an-invasion/   
      
   Calling illegal entry an "invasion" is something only a really stupid moron   
   could do.  You know — someone like Hartung or Gak.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)