Comment by hackyhacky

Okay, I'm surprised by how much you are missing the point, so let's imagine a dialog taking place in the 1930s in Europe.

A: Hey, I think we should murder all people of <ethnicity> because they are a threat to national security.

B: I think that your argument in favor of genocide is based on animus and not offered in good faith.

A: How dare you call me a liar! Why don't you actually engage with my argument??

Sorry for the crude analogy, but that is what you are saying. You are completely missing what is shocking about this scenario.

Everyone already knows the arguments for and against legal immigration. We've been having that discussion for decades, or centuries, and there are valid and coherent arguments on both sides. There is no need to reiterate them here.

What is unique about the current situation is that the current administration is not engaging with valid arguments against immigration: they are offering transparently nonsense justifications, which we are not used to seeing from our government to this extreme degree -- even the bad-faith arguments for the Iraq war were dressed up in real argument clothes. No matter how you feel about immigration, you should be shocked by the administration's behavior. Not just that the arguments are unreasonable, but transparently so. Pointing that fact out is completely relevant, as it is IMHO more novel to our society and dangerous to democracy than simple immigration policy. Furthermore, treating the administration's arguments as valid just gives them legitimacy, which they do not deserve.

The people in favor of these policies are not making thoughtful decisions for the good of the nation and it does no one a favor to pretend that they do. They will not be persuaded by the well-reasoned arguments you point us towards because reasoning is not part of their decision making process. That's why everyone in this thread is calling you a tool, and why pointing out the bad faith is completely relevant.