Is supporting illegal immigration the same as supporting slavery?

Well done, you are so clever.

Thanks, I try.

It is like RemyBrown has wormed his way into the site again.

You are a bully.

Oh yes.

Slavery, by definition, is involuntary labor. When someone braves the Sonora desert in July to get here and work, you know that they REALLY want to work here. Comparing them with slaves who were forced to move here and labor is stupid.

It's hyperbole and it's easy to try and ignore the argument by pointing to hyperbole thatatches the hyperbole of the left, but the left is essentially arguing that if farmers have to pay a fair wage than the economy will collapse and so are essentially advocating for abusive and exploitative practices that are easy to get away with when you are dealing with non citizens. 

They are simultaneously arguing that the economy will collapse if farmers pay a fair wage and treat their employees fairly while simultaneously arguing that minimum wage should be like $20 an hour 

The title of this thread is "Is supporting illegal immigration the same as supporting slavery?". The answer is no, and nothing in what you wrote has anything to do with either the question or the answer.

The contradiction in the position of "the left" is obvious, and pointing it out makes for a valid argument. Starting with dubious comparisons though is not the way to make it.

Nigga if a slavemaster say 'I want the taxpayer to pay for the housing and medical care of my slave', that just make him a exceptionally cheap an nasty slaveowner. AT LEAST the old massas pay for the hut, the food, and the old timey healthcare, leeches or some shit. These new niggas don't even wanna do that.

Nigga you don't choose which country you live in, that's up to the country. That's like saying me not fuckin a nigga is wrong cause he don't wanna be a incel. What he want is immaterial if the other party don't consent.

This is unlikely. More likely is everyone will go back to Mexico where they will starve less. America has been fine with mining ghost towns and rust belt towns. Nobody is starving in Detroit after the auto industry got outsourced to China. Nobody in California is going to starve either.

Now, think of the 90 billion a year of remittances to Mexico.....

So when a group of people is being exploited, we should ban them from the workforce?

Any discussion of comparing the support of illegal aliens to antebellum slavery must begin with the proven logic that relationship is not ad hoc proof of cause, and therefore is a useless discussion. Aliens here illegally are illegal not because of anything done post-crossing the border, but by crossing the border itself without, by law, confirming their status here as legally binding on US jurisprudence. Whereas, in the antebellum era [pre Civil War] slavery was a legal condition in those states condoning it by law [generally the Southern States] although some Northern States were sympathetic to slavery though not engaged in it. In the Northern States, determined by State, blacks present there by whatever means [entered the U.S. legally as free immigrants, or escaped from slavery in the South] were even allowed to vote, and enjoyed other citizenship privileges as any other immigrant or person born here of earlier immigrants who became citizens.  

So, the direct comparison, now, is meaningless.

So only consent of the master matters?

Make your psychopathic outlook make sense.

That is not necessarily a given. Were I an antebellum slaveowner [given my sentiments, however, I don't see that as possible we're I the same person I am now]  and I wanted one of my slaves to dig a hole, I would give him the shovel and demand he start to dig. He may refuse. I may grab his hands holding the shovel and force his body to go through the motions of digging, and may even succeed in having a shovelful of dirt, but it was my force digging the dirt, not the slave's. And, considering that he may have spent a lifetime digging holes, he is probably much stronger than I am, so his effort of refusal may exceed mine to force his digging. Net result, I dig the hole, not his "involuntary" labor. The same may result if I tell another slave more willing to obey the order to force the first to dig. I get the hole dug, perhaps, my original objective, but my inefficiency is evident, requiring two slaves to dig the hole one could accomplish. Of course, the second may have dug the hole himself, but I still have a slave refusing to work. I imagine that routine happened, and the slaveowner may have killed the first slave in a rage, but, net result, he is lacking a slave he used to have. No, slavery was not necessarily involuntary labor, but merely involuntary, definition not withstanding.

No nigga. When a country make laws that say 'you gotta treat workers this way', sometime a boss goes 'hmmm, nah'. He find some nigga that willin to act like a slave and hire him on the downlow. All that shit undermine basic standards. Only one way to handle it and maintain good working conditions. You pop Juanita in a crate and send her ratchet ass back to Guatemala, then you find the nigga that hired her and hit him with the ole firing squad.

Lil Miss Ratman, I know readin is hard. I made two separate and distinct replies. The master metaphor dealt with people not wanting to treat they workers(slaves) with basic decency and expectin the government to supply they basic needs - which makes them worse than the old slave masters cause they won't even supply homes and healthcare to they workers. They want that work, they want to pay them niggas peanuts, but they don't want to supply anything towards they upkeep. A slave master treat his slave like a car - he get oil changes, he keep that shit in his garage, because that's his investment. That shit is dehumanizing. But these new massas wanna treat these nigga like rental cars, which is even worse somehow. Crackas will always find a way to be more evil.

The consent metaphor dealt with the idea that it's somehow wrong to send someone back to a place they was born in but don't want to be in. It's dumb as fuck. We all born somewhere. We live where we born. It's possible to move somewhere else, but only if the country want you. Most countries don't want a bunch of dusty ass, broke ass niggas rollin up on them.

The argument that supporting undocumented immigrants is akin to supporting slavery fundamentally misunderstands both history and present reality.

Let’s be clear: Slavery in the United States was not about workers being “allowed” to do jobs or being “relied on” by the economy. It was the legal and violent ownership of human beings. People were bought and sold, denied rights entirely, and worked under the constant threat of torture or death. To compare that with immigrants seeking better lives—who are not owned, are not legally property, and in fact face enormous systemic obstacles—shows a complete disregard for what slavery was.

The irony is that if there’s a modern comparison to slavery in this discussion, it lies with the exploitative labor practices that undocumented immigrants are often subjected to: wage theft, unsafe working conditions, no legal protection, and constant threat of deportation if they speak up. And these conditions don’t exist because they are undocumented—they exist because we choose to make them vulnerable. It’s a system that creates a second-tier labor force to benefit exploitative employers—usually with political support from those very same “tough on immigration” types.

So when Democrats (or anyone else) talk about expanding rights or protections for undocumented immigrants, they’re not arguing for slavery—they’re arguing for freedom: freedom from being trafficked, from being abused by employers, from having families separated, from being used as political scapegoats while quietly enriching industries like agriculture, construction, and domestic labor.

Now, as for the “you wouldn’t be allowed to act like this in Pakistan/Iran/China/Mexico” line—it’s one of the oldest nationalist fallacies out there. It suggests we should base our human rights and legal principles on the most regressive or ethnocentric examples we can find abroad. If your argument is “we should discriminate here because other countries discriminate too,” that’s not a defense of justice or national security—it’s just a call to abandon our own principles of equality, fairness, and democracy. You don’t fight hypocrisy with more hypocrisy—you fight it with consistency.

Also, let’s talk about remittances. Yes, many immigrants send money home to family. That’s not some act of theft—it’s what working people everywhere do: take care of their loved ones. And those same immigrants spend money here, pay rent, buy food, raise kids, and in many cases do pay taxes—billions of dollars into Social Security, for example, that they’ll never collect. The idea that immigrants are a net drain is a myth that’s been debunked by nearly every major economic study. They often do the jobs citizens won’t, under conditions citizens wouldn’t accept, for wages citizens would protest.

If the real concern is that undocumented workers “undermine the labor market,” then the obvious solution is to offer them legal protections and a path to citizenship so they can no longer be exploited by employers. That raises standards for everyone. The people opposing this don’t want a secure, fair economy—they want a vulnerable class they can blame for problems caused by billionaires and corporate lobbyists.

So no, supporting undocumented immigrants is not the same as supporting slavery. It’s the opposite. What’s closer to slavery is denying people basic rights, using them for their labor, and then discarding or deporting them when politically convenient.

And for those who keep saying “but the law!”—laws can be unjust. Slavery was once legal. So was denying women the vote. So was banning interracial marriage. If the only argument someone has is “that’s the law,” they’ve got no moral footing. The question isn’t whether something is legal—the question is whether it’s just.