Also, regarding the phrase “undocumented immigrants,”
Since the deliberate implication is that there is no issue, these people are merely missing some paperwork, like an accident where an ID was not delivered through the mail,
This is very much a “nations are only lines on a map” style of thinking.
So let’s give a “nations are only lines on a map” style of answer.
If national citizenship is so meaningless that not having it is merely equivalent to not having a few papers, that it’s irrelevant what historical experience one has, or education, or national loyalty, because nations are social constructs and don’t really exist, right?
Then one agrees that the “United States of America” cannot hold any moral liability, on account of being a few lines on a map, or a few pieces of paper.
So every war, every coup, every conquest, every civil rights violation, and so on, the “United States of America” is not responsible for and owes, in itself, absolutely nothing.
If you do think the United States of America as a geopolitical entity is more than just a few lines on a map or a few pieces of paper, then the term you can use if you feel “illegal immigrant” is too dehumanizing, because “no person is illegal” (even though by that same logic there can be no such word as “trespasser”),
is “unauthorized migrants”.
Apparently that’s the “in” neutral word now.
I find it remarkable just how quickly the Democratic Party re-learned that a distinction exists when Trump got into motion.
>
because nations are social constructs and don’t really exist, right?
Wrong. Social constructs exist. Genders exist, the patriarchy exists, capitalism exists, nations exist. It’s just that, with social constructs whatever they are, you can’t use them in naturalistic arguments when the argument itself isn’t subject to dismissal by the naturalistic fallacy.
It’s not that nations don’t exist, it’s that they shouldn’t exist in the way they do in this world, and that international solidarity should trump nationalistic allegiances. Borders tear us apart, it’s not that we aren’t torn apart.
Maybe the best dialectical reality towards reconciling nationalism and internationalism currently in the world is the EU, whereby in many ways the differences between a Frenchman and a German really is a bunch of paperwork. Of course with that there’s a rise in a appropriated European nationalism following the migrant crisis, so obviously from a leftist standpoint it’s not ideal.
But you’ve misunderstood the core argument and because of that the foundations of your arguments are gone from under you.
It’s still binding even if the argument is “nations shouldn’t exist”.
And by the way? World government is what shouldn’t exist. Nations are the real alternative to that, and it takes more than being a difference in paperwork to fuel it enough for that. Things like communes aren’t a real alternative.