The protest you linked wasn't calling for completely open borders. That's also not policy of either of the main parties in the US, as was implied above. I understand "no one is illegal" to be a counter to the use of language like "illegals" to describe the humans involved.

▲

xp84 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I get that you can make the argument that they're merely making a semantic point. However, if that side of the debate actually agreed with us that these people shouldn't even be here at all, what difference does it make what we call them? If the side who wants them gone had their way, they'd be gone back home and they'd no longer be in any illegal status in any sense of the word.

It only matters what we call them, if you want to keep them here forever. I think the present-day recommended term is probably just "immigrant" right? So basically we should call them the same thing we call the people who waited years for their turn and proved that they had a positive contribution to make to our society.

	▲	NoGravitas 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The term for immigrants without papers is "undocumented immigrant". The largest group of undocumented immigrants are people who entered the country legally, and then overstayed their visas or otherwise violated their terms (usually by working on a tourist or student visa). This is a civil offense.

▲

nosianu 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why do you choose that single example, which I said was just that, and pretend my whole statement hinges on it?

You are either misinformed, willfully ignorant or lying, and I've had it with this discussion style.

Yes, people who use "no one is illegal" do also say "no more borders". Not every single one, clearly humans are diverse, but your statement is just false.

Here a UK example even combining the statements (as I said, the movement is not limited to the US). https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.11073215

Another example, also showing this is an older movement (2005): https://www.statewatch.org/media/documents/news/2005/apr/int... ("No Borders/No One Is Illegal campaigns")

	▲	AlecSchueler 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Why do you choose that single example, which I said was just that Because we're looking for people saying borders should be completely opened. An example of people saying something else is irrelevant. > Yes, people who use "no one is illegal" do also say "no more borders". Ok but the conversation is about people saying the latter. It was you who brought the former into the conversation. > Here a UK example Which British parties are active in the United States? > Another example, also showing this is an older movement The claim was that "the left" has no response to emigration issues beyond "open all borders" and that this was the policy of "one party." The existence of an anti-borders movement is again irrelevant to the questions I raised in response to this assertion.
	▲	giaour 10 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Just because some people who say "no one is illegal" also say "no more borders," that does not automatically mean that the former implies the latter. If that were the case, we could paint everyone who agrees with Nick Fuentes on any point (including, in the extreme, "nice weather we're having today") as a antisemite. The old joke linking dietary choices to Nazism ("You know who else was a vegetarian? Hitler!") is meant to make light of this logical fallacy. The grandparent post accurately captured what I have understood people to mean by "no one is illegal" -- it is meant to protest a dehumanizing way to describe a class of people.