CNN article shows how the Left has convinced so many snowflakes to support open borders

When your children look back to determine how the U.S.--a nation supposedly governed by laws, under the Constitution--was lost, show them this article by the America-hating assholes at CNN.

Written five years ago, the article claims there's no such thing as an "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant."

Of course you don't believe any Mainstream Media organ could lie so brazenly, so click the link and scroll down the the lead sentence of the sixth 'graf:

Migrant workers residing unlawfully in the U.S. are not -- and never have been -- criminals.   (source: CNN)

The author rationalizes this seeming contradiction by claiming--falsely--that if someone breaks the law, they're not actually a criminal unless they're convicted.  It's a sophomoric sophistry that simply ignores the definition of the noun "criminal": "a person guilty or convicted of a crime."

But accuracy in definitions is the last thing on the mine of the CNN author.  He has far more important considerations--like demanding amnesty and open borders.  So he takes it on himself to define the custom-Leftist meaning "illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant:"

When you label someone an "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant"...you are effectively saying the individual, as opposed to the actions the person has taken, is unlawful. The terms imply the very existence of an unauthorized migrant in America is criminal.  

See, once you let him get away with claiming that workers "residing unlawfully in the U.S." were NOT criminals, he can then claim that anyone who uses "illegal" with "alien" or "immigrant" must be claiming "the very existence of an unauthorized migrant in America is criminal."

That last phrase in quotes is quite accurate, of course, but not under his custom definition.  And he claims that must mean you're saying the person is illegal--a meaningless term.

Of course that's not what "illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant" mean.  But by this time the Left has already claimed they've won the argument.

The skills Leftist America-haters bring to these arguments are significant.  They're the kind of skills that persuade many--even supreme-court "justices."  For example, consider this line of argument:

In this country there is still a presumption of innocence that requires a jury to convict someone of a crime. If you don't pay your taxes, are you an illegal? What if you get a speeding ticket? A murder conviction?  No. You're still not an illegal. Even alleged terrorists and child molesters aren't labeled illegals.

He starts with statements generally acknowledged to be true:  When one is on trial there is a presumption of innocence.  One is only convicted of a crime by the vote of a jury.  But see what he does in the second sentence: "If you don't pay your taxes, are you an illegal?"  He switches terms from "convicted of a crime" to "illegal," but uses his custom (false) definition that the term "illegal" ONLY applies to someone who's been convicted of a crime.

As you saw earlier, that's not the only definition.  But by using his version of the definition right after "presumption of innocence" and "requires a jury to convict" he leads readers to conclude that someone who enters the U.S. illegally is NOT actually an "illegal immigrant."

This is how the Left wins debates: sophomoric tricks.  "But it sounds so convincing!"  Yes.  But on closer examination--which is very hard to do in a real face-to-face debate--you can see how the trick works.  A simple example shows the flaw:

    Every citizen who hasn't been convicted of a felony is entitled to vote. 
    Conservatives believe people should have to show a photo ID to vote. 
    Therefore conservatives must be racists.