Seems that the Associated Press has decided that there isn't much to gain from just reporting the news, but that they should also help distort the facts
Starting now, you will never see the "lazy" words "illegal immigrant" in another AP story unless they're quoting someone important saying it. That faint sound you hear is Senate reporters from the AP, The New York Times, and beyond smacking their delete keys, rethinking their agenda setting aloud, and figuring out how we talk now, amidst a serious legislative discussion, about the millions of illegal immigrants people living in the U.S. without legal permission. AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll explains the timely style change:
The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term "illegal immigrant" or the use of "illegal" to describe a person. Instead, it tells users that "illegal" should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally.
For immigration reform advocates, of course, this is a clear win. Jose Antonio Vargas, a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist who entered the country when he was 12-years-old and does not have legal permission to live in the United States, had pushed the news organization to change its definition back in September. "The term dehumanizes and marginalizes the people it seeks to describe. Think of it this way, in what other context do we call someone illegal?" Vargas asked at the Online News Association's conference. "Being in a country without proper documents is a civil offense, not a criminal one."
RELATED: DREAM Act Faces Senate Vote
The AP's decision also comes as Senators are putting the final touches on a bi-partisan plan for immigration reform, which will no doubt test the nuance and specificity of reporters — at the AP and elsewhere — who tend to be in a rush, even on such a weighty topic. Indeed, there's also a shift on a bigger level here: If an organization as big and influential as the AP is changing the way it uses words, will it perhaps pull or push other publications to strike that phrase?
RELATED: Why 51% of Americans Approve of Arizona's Immigration Law
It turns out that The New York Times, which was also pushed by Vargas to drop the term, is now reconsidering its use. "From what I can gather, The Times's changes will not be nearly as sweeping as The A.P.'s," reports the Gray Lady's public editor, Margaret Sullivan in a blog post today. Sullivan didn't reveal the full scope of the Times impending move, but Sullivan explains the change — which will be introduced to staffers sometime this week — will push journalists to be more specific:
It will "provide more nuance and options" for what term to use, said Philip B. Corbett, associate managing editor for standards. In the past, for example, the term "undocumented" has practically been banned as a euphemism. That position is very likely to be softened in the revision, and other ways of describing those who are in the United States without proper legal documentation probably will be allowed and encouraged.
The Times and the AP are not dictionaries, but they still, by way of their influential readership, could shape the way people use the phrase — or don't — and change conversations people have about the topic. The stricken phrase, as the AP's Carroll explained to Poynter, "ends up pigeonholing people or creating long descriptive titles where you use some main event in someone’s life to become the modifier before their name." She added that the use was a "lazy device."
RELATED: Liberal Bloggers Are Breaking Up with Barack Obama
That's understandable. We'd hate to have one event in our lifetime determine the way we're described in one article for the rest of our existence. And if that term is so important that it could brand someone for the rest of their lives, Caroll believes it shouldn't be marginalized or glossed over — it should be specific. The official AP Stylebook now reads:
illegal immigration Entering or residing in a country in violation of civil or criminal law. Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant. Acceptable variations include living in or entering a country illegally or without legal permission.
Except in direct quotations, do not use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented.
And the AP will require its reporters — and presumably a lot of other news organizations beyond just the Times starting to question themselves — to do more homework:
Do not describe people as violating immigration laws without attribution.
Specify wherever possible how someone entered the country illegally and from where. Crossed the border? Overstayed a visa? What nationality?
Essentially that prescription would strike from existence sentences like this — from the AP's Monday report on Senate negotiations that have nearly reached a conclusion:
RELATED: Why Hasn't Jose Antonio Vargas Been Deported?
Under the new AP guidelines, that phrase would change to something like "millions of people who don't have permission to live here legally." But even then, such an edit might be a bit too broad, since the original passage could be referring to children who, according to the AP, probably did not voluntarily and knowingly enter a country illegally. But the new reality that we're interested in a line edit and asking questions is probably a sign that the AP's shift isn't merely about semantics.
Funny how the person who was pushing for this change in the AP is an illegal immigrant
“And in a groundbreaking move, the Associated Press, the largest news gathering outlet in the world, will no longer use the term ‘illegal immigrant.’ That is out. No longer ‘illegal immigrant.’ They will now use the phrase ‘undocumented Democrat.’
Kanluwen wrote: Yeah, it totally could have nothing to do with the fact that "illegal" is actively being used in some communities as a slur.
Or that its being used in a factually correct manner to describe immigrants who are in a country illegally. But lets not let that fact get in the way shall we?
Kanluwen wrote: Yeah, it totally could have nothing to do with the fact that "illegal" is actively being used in some communities as a slur.
Or that its being used in a factually correct manner to describe immigrants who are in a country illegally. But lets not let that fact get in the way shall we?
But as pointed out we don't refer to other similar things with such toxic verbiage, and it is used as a pejorative, which doesn't really help anyone. There are multiple ways to describe the situation, not just one, and we don't have to go with something so hostile, unless the point is just to be donkey-caves about it.
Kanluwen wrote: Yeah, it totally could have nothing to do with the fact that "illegal" is actively being used in some communities as a slur.
Or that its being used in a factually correct manner to describe immigrants who are in a country illegally. But lets not let that fact get in the way shall we?
But as pointed out we don't refer to other similar things with such toxic verbiage, and it is used as a pejorative, which doesn't really help anyone. There are multiple ways to describe the situation, not just one, and we don't have to go with something so hostile, unless the point is just to be donkey-caves about it.
I like:
-Illegal forenner (der takin our jobs!) or alternatively:
-Bob.
Kanluwen wrote: Yeah, it totally could have nothing to do with the fact that "illegal" is actively being used in some communities as a slur.
Or that its being used in a factually correct manner to describe immigrants who are in a country illegally. But lets not let that fact get in the way shall we?
Sure, let's not.
But let's also not gloss over the fact that there are people who are using the term "illegal" as a way to slur people within this country--illegally or not-- and use them as a way to score political points with a voter base that would be just fine with replacing the term "illegal immigrant" with "wetback".
Kanluwen wrote: Yeah, it totally could have nothing to do with the fact that "illegal" is actively being used in some communities as a slur.
Or that its being used in a factually correct manner to describe immigrants who are in a country illegally. But lets not let that fact get in the way shall we?
Sure, let's not.
But let's also not gloss over the fact that there are people who are using the term "illegal" as a way to slur people within this country--illegally or not-- and use them as a way to score political points with a voter base that would be just fine with replacing the term "illegal immigrant" with "wetback".
Mmm...or they are just being accurate with a defined term, like "illegal tresspasser" or "DamnYankee."
Ahtman wrote: But as pointed out we don't refer to other similar things with such toxic verbiage, and it is used as a pejorative, which doesn't really help anyone. There are multiple ways to describe the situation, not just one, and we don't have to go with something so hostile, unless the point is just to be donkey-caves about it.
As pointed out by whom? The journalist who pushed for the change who is an illegal immigrant, and who confuses the concepts of "criminal" and "illegal" acts (as a Pulitzer prize winner I'd hope his understanding of the English language would be better).
What is hostile about describing someone who has entered the country, and disregarded its immigration laws, as an illegal immigrant? It is factually accurate. What ways would you suggest that these people should be described that it factually accurate and doesn't distort the truth about their presence in the country? Please don't say undocumented either, it makes it sound like they just haven't gotten their paperwork through.
Ahtman wrote: But as pointed out we don't refer to other similar things with such toxic verbiage, and it is used as a pejorative, which doesn't really help anyone. There are multiple ways to describe the situation, not just one, and we don't have to go with something so hostile, unless the point is just to be donkey-caves about it.
As pointed out by whom? The journalist who pushed for the change who is an illegal immigrant, and who confuses the concepts of "criminal" and "illegal" acts (as a Pulitzer prize winner I'd hope his understanding of the English language would be better).
What is hostile about describing someone who has entered the country, and disregarded its immigration laws, as an illegal immigrant? It is factually accurate. What ways would you suggest that these people should be described that it factually accurate and doesn't distort the truth about their presence in the country? Please don't say undocumented either, it makes it sound like they just haven't gotten their paperwork through.
Well more and more a good term to use is "refugee from a failed state", "fleeing from cartel violence", or any number of descriptors related to just how gakky things are south of Texas.
But that really only applies to people coming over from Mexico. You have plenty of other Latin American countries where people are coming from due to violence and potentially government persecution.
But let's also not gloss over the fact that there are people who are using the term "illegal" as a way to slur people within this country--illegally or not-- and use them as a way to score political points with a voter base that would be just fine with replacing the term "illegal immigrant" with "wetback".
Ok, so your argument is that because a small number of people may use the term as a slur then we should strike its usage from all media and replace it with something more cuddly? Currently the only political points being scored are by those people who use the terms "undocumented immigrant", "American in waiting" or the like to sanitize and build sympathy for people who think that the law should not apply to them. Its also common for then to conflate legal and illegal immigration.
So if you're attacked and stabbed will you phone the police to report an unlicensed surgery?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: Well more and more a good term to use is "refugee from a failed state", "fleeing from cartel violence", or any number of descriptors related to just how gakky things are south of Texas.
But that really only applies to people coming over from Mexico. You have plenty of other Latin American countries where people are coming from due to violence and potentially government persecution.
But Mexico isn't a failed state (at least not yet and not officially), and fleeing from cartel violence isn't a lawful reason to ignore the immigration process. It also ignores and absolves those who entered for purely economic reasons.
What about people from outside Mexico who outstay their visas, enter illegally etc.? Your descriptions are wholly inaccurate for those people, do we have to add a new descriptor based on country of origin?
But let's also not gloss over the fact that there are people who are using the term "illegal" as a way to slur people within this country--illegally or not-- and use them as a way to score political points with a voter base that would be just fine with replacing the term "illegal immigrant" with "wetback".
Ok, so your argument is that because a small number of people may use the term as a slur then we should strike its usage from all media and replace it with something more cuddly? Currently the only political points being scored are by those people who use the terms "undocumented immigrant", "American in waiting" or the like to sanitize and build sympathy for people who think that the law should not apply to them. Its also common for then to conflate legal and illegal immigration.
It's also common to ignore the fact that Mexico is a failed state and that people coming over the border can feasibly apply for refugee status in some cases.
But no. My argument is that there is a growing number of people who DO use the term in an insulting manner because of the fact that it's not the "most offensive" terminology that they could use.
So if you're attacked and stabbed will you phone the police to report an unlicensed surgery?
I get that you're all upset about the fact that these people are coming over without having had to deal with the "hassle" that is immigration that you've had to deal with.
I mean, it's not like parts of Mexico are a war zone or anything. Clearly, they should have to fill out all the proper forms!
THE FORMS MUST BE OBEYED!
But please. If you're going to discuss things, don't start throwing out ridiculous examples and pretend you're contributing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
But Mexico isn't a failed state (at least not yet and not officially)
Oh, so we need official declarations now?
Anyone who thinks that Mexico isn't a failed state is deluding themselves. They really are.
and fleeing from cartel violence isn't a lawful reason to ignore the immigration process.
Oh sure. How could I forget, clearly they need to have filled out the proper forms. And paid up front, like every other refugee!
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaait a minute...
It also ignores and absolves those who entered for purely economic reasons.
What about people from outside Mexico who outstay their visas, enter illegally etc.? Your descriptions are wholly inaccurate for those people, do we have to add a new descriptor based on country of origin?
How often do you hear people complaining about people from outside of Mexico(or Latin America, for that matter) overstaying their visas?
I know you've immigrated to the US. I'm going to let you in on a secret.
When politicians refer to "illegal immigrants", they're referring to people who have immigrated from anywhere south of Texas.
Kanluwen wrote: It's also common to ignore the fact that Mexico is a failed state and that people coming over the border can feasibly apply for refugee status in some cases.
Mexico isn't a failed state, it may be close to it but it is not a failed state. They also have to meet the following "Refugee status or asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion."
[url]http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=1f1c3e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=1f1c3e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD
[/url]
Kanluwen wrote: But no. My argument is that there is a growing number of people who DO use the term in an insulting manner because of the fact that it's not the "most offensive" terminology that they could use.
So your argument is still that because a small number uses it as an insult the rest of us should be stopped from using it. So gays and homosexuals shouldn't be able to describe themselves as such because a small number of people mis-use those words too?
Kanluwen wrote: I get that you're all upset about the fact that these people are coming over without having had to deal with the "hassle" that is immigration that you've had to deal with.
I mean, it's not like parts of Mexico are a war zone or anything. Clearly, they should have to fill out all the proper forms!
THE FORMS MUST BE OBEYED!
But please. If you're going to discuss things, don't start throwing out ridiculous examples and pretend you're contributing.
Coming from the person who thinks that everyone coming from across the globe is fleeing cartel violence?
Yes, imagine the horror of the US being able to refuse people with criminal backgrounds, chronic mental health or personality defects and communicable diseases.
Its not the hassle (although there is plenty of it). Its the simple fact that people who felt that US law just doesn't apply to the came across the border and now the government and media are bending over backwards to accommodate them. That illegal immigrants qualify for State and Federal aid that lawful immigrants don't qualify for for ten years.
That the Federal government has not learned the lessons from California that illegal immigrants have been a huge drain on the State and have resulted in billions of dollars that should have been spent elsewhere.
Anyone who thinks that Mexico isn't a failed state is deluding themselves. They really are.
So absent of official declarations what do you suggest? That because a country isn't quite like the US its a failed state so everyone gets a free pass? Its not up to low level Federal employees to make decisions whether a country is a failed state or not.
Lets not let that get in the way of your hyperbole though.
Kanluwen wrote: How often do you hear people complaining about people from outside of Mexico(or Latin America, for that matter) overstaying their visas?
Pretty much everyone I've spoken too objects to illegal immigrants, regardless of their country of origin. So fairly regularly.
Kanluwen wrote: When politicians refer to "illegal immigrants", they're referring to people who have immigrated from anywhere south of Texas.
So politicians call legal immigrants from south of Texas illegal immigrants?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: The journalist who pushed for the change who is an illegal immigrant, and who confuses the concepts of "criminal" and "illegal" acts (as a Pulitzer prize winner I'd hope his understanding of the English language would be better).
IIRC it's not actually a crime to be in America illegally, it is in fact merely a civil statute violation. Aside from in places like Arizona where they've passed specific laws.
So, if we're going to claim that the news should just report the news rather than provide an artificial distortion of events due to incorrect language, then the change is entirely correct is it not ?
Kanluwen wrote: It's also common to ignore the fact that Mexico is a failed state and that people coming over the border can feasibly apply for refugee status in some cases.
Because clearly individuals fleeing cartel violence couldn't fit anywhere under that criteria.
Kanluwen wrote: But no. My argument is that there is a growing number of people who DO use the term in an insulting manner because of the fact that it's not the "most offensive" terminology that they could use.
So your argument is still that because a small number uses it as an insult the rest of us should be stopped from using it. So gays and homosexuals shouldn't be able to describe themselves as such because a small number of people mis-use those words too?
How many people do you know of that use the term "homosexual" as a slur? "Gay", "queer" and "f*g/f*ggot" are far more commonly used as slurs in that regard.
Kanluwen wrote: I get that you're all upset about the fact that these people are coming over without having had to deal with the "hassle" that is immigration that you've had to deal with.
I mean, it's not like parts of Mexico are a war zone or anything. Clearly, they should have to fill out all the proper forms!
THE FORMS MUST BE OBEYED!
But please. If you're going to discuss things, don't start throwing out ridiculous examples and pretend you're contributing.
Coming from the person who thinks that everyone coming from across the globe is fleeing cartel violence?
Once again:
You need to realize that when "illegal immigrants" are being discussed here in the US political arena, it is not referring to every single illegal immigrant from around the world. It is, almost without fail, referring to people who are in this country from Latin America.
Yes, imagine the horror of the US being able to refuse people with criminal backgrounds, chronic mental health or personality defects and communicable diseases.
Yeah, because being able to refuse people with criminal backgrounds sure will keep the drug smugglers/cartel members out!
Oh. Wait...
Its not the hassle (although there is plenty of it). Its the simple fact that people who felt that US law just doesn't apply to them came across the border and now the government and media are bending over backwards to accommodate them. That illegal immigrants qualify for State and Federal aid that lawful immigrants don't qualify for for ten years.
That the Federal government has not learned the lessons from California that illegal immigrants have been a huge drain on the State and have resulted in billions of dollars that should have been spent elsewhere.
How much did it cost you to immigrate? How much did it cost you to ensure that you had all your paperwork in order and that you met all the criteria to immigrate?
It's not as simple as you make it out to be. Stop pretending it is, and stop pretending that just because someone is not beating their chest in anger about illegal immigration that they're "bending over backwards" to accommodate them.
reds8n wrote: IIRC it's not actually a crime to be in America illegally, it is in fact merely a civil statute violation. Aside from in places like Arizona where they've passed specific laws.
So, if we're going to claim that the news should just report the news rather than provide an artificial distortion of events due to incorrect language, then the change is entirely correct is it not ?
I wasn't making the claim that breaking immigration law was a criminal matter, so apologies if that was not clear.
What those individuals have done however is broken immigration law (an illegal act) to enter the country as an immigrant. To then say that the term illegal immigrant is therefore inaccurate is a gross distortion of the factual position.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: The journalist who pushed for the change who is an illegal immigrant, and who confuses the concepts of "criminal" and "illegal" acts (as a Pulitzer prize winner I'd hope his understanding of the English language would be better).
IIRC it's not actually a crime to be in America illegally, it is in fact merely a civil statute violation. Aside from in places like Arizona where they've passed specific laws.
So, if we're going to claim that the news should just report the news rather than provide an artificial distortion of events due to incorrect language, then the change is entirely correct is it not ?
Unlicensed alien then? Licensed aliens should have to wear a pin with a hissing Alien holding a diver's license...
What those individuals have done however is broken immigration law (an illegal act) to enter the country as an immigrant. To then say that the term illegal immigrant is therefore inaccurate is a gross distortion of the factual position.
I don't think they all have done this. Especially children and the like, or those who are duped into believing that they're entering legally but in fact aren't. Which I can't imagine is a vast number but it does/can happen. Seems harsh to stigmatise someone for little more than desperate naivety.
.. although we do that with stupidity elsewhere all too oft so...
So if people like that haven't committed an illegal act it doesn't seem that odd to avoid the usage of a blanket and misleading term.
That said of course there should be no problem with referring to those who wouldn't fall into the above exceptions as illegal immigrants/whatever.
Kanluwen wrote: Because clearly individuals fleeing cartel violence couldn't fit anywhere under that criteria.
No. Because what you are arguing is to widen the criteria so much that any victim of crime could benefit from it
Kanluwen wrote: How many people do you know of that use the term "homosexual" as a slur? "Gay", "queer" and "f*g/f*ggot" are far more commonly used as slurs in that regard.
I had explicitly mentioned gay, but you choose to ignore that, and also the question. Should we ban the use of the word "gay" because some people use it as an insult?
Kanluwen wrote: Once again:
You need to realize that when "illegal immigrants" are being discussed here in the US political arena, it is not referring to every single illegal immigrant from around the world. It is, almost without fail, referring to people who are in this country from Latin America.
I'd like to see your authoritative source for this, because right now its starting to sound like you're describing your own usage of the word
Kanluwen wrote: Yeah, because being able to refuse people with criminal backgrounds sure will keep the drug smugglers/cartel members out!
Oh. Wait...
Pretty sure than going through criminal background checks (carried out by 50+ agencies) does a pretty good job of weeding out the vast majority of bad eggs applying. But if that isn't the case I'd like to see some statistics to show otherwise.
It was more than criminal backgrounds that I mentioned, so please stop ignoring the arguments that don't suit you.
Kanluwen wrote: How much did it cost you to immigrate? How much did it cost you to ensure that you had all your paperwork in order and that you met all the criteria to immigrate?
And this has what to do with the argument at hand?
Kanluwen wrote: It's not as simple as you make it out to be. Stop pretending it is, and stop pretending that just because someone is not beating their chest in anger about illegal immigration that they're "bending over backwards" to accommodate them.
You've done a great job in distorting what I've said. My initial point was that a news organisation had change their terminology in a way that can be seen as very biased (especially as the change was proposed and pursued by an illegal immigrant).
The "bending over backwards" concerns the government (State and Federal) doing everything that they can to help people who have no right to be in this country (welfare, medical care, education, social services, driving licenses, not prosecuting people for Social Security fraud, Sanctuary cities that refuse to hand illegal immigrants over to the proper authorities despite being legally obliged to do so etc.) while ignoring those who came to this country legally.
So stop distorting and twisting my words when there are some very real concerns
I don't think they all have done this. Especially children and the like, or those who are duped into believing that they're entering legally but in fact aren't. Which I can't imagine is a vast number but it does/can happen. Seems harsh to stigmatise someone for little more than desperate naivety.
.. although we do that with stupidity elsewhere all too oft so...
So if people like that haven't committed an illegal act it doesn't seem that odd to avoid the usage of a blanket and misleading term.
That said of course there should be no problem with referring to those who wouldn't fall into the above exceptions as illegal immigrants/whatever.
Intent or not on the child's part, they are still in the country illegally. So speaking on a purely factual basis they are still illegal immigrants.
Also for those people smuggled into the country (especially by coyotes) its hard to claim ignorance of the facts
Intent or not on the child's part, they are still in the country illegally. So speaking on a purely factual basis they are still illegal immigrants.
No they're not.
They are there unlawfully not illegally.
I'm not versed in law words... What is the difference between illegally and unlawfully... root words, prefixes, and suffixes imply that those were are fairly identical.
So if something is “unlawful,” it is "applied to promises, agreements, considerations, and the like, denotes that they are ineffectual in law because they involve acts which, are disapproved of by the law, and are therefore not recognized as the ground of legal rights, either because they are immoral or because they are against public policy" (Black's Law Dictionary).
If something is illegal, it is "Not authorized by law; Illicit ; unlawful; contrary to law" (Black's Law Dictionary).
So I guess they do differ, but at the same time our nation has laws about immigration and the process of such... If you bypass this process, then you are here illegally are you not?
Alfndrate wrote: I'm not versed in law words... What is the difference between illegally and unlawfully... root words, prefixes, and suffixes imply that those were are fairly identical.
According to my law professors, no significant difference (although I will spare you the terrible joke ) If you really want to get into it though;
If the law prescribes a way of doing something and you do it differently you are doing it unlawfully
If a law prohibits or compels you to do something and you fail to abide by that lay then the action is illegal
So on that basis, if you are compelled to immigrate in accordance with the law and do not follow it then you are in fact entering illegally.
I really don't think we have the time to go into the finer minutiae of legal definitions, feel free to have a dig about.
You'll either discover a deep and abiding love of legal systems and terminology and dedicate your life to the law or ( more likely) find yourself on some weird website where they explain how the police can't actually arrest you , income tax is against the Constitution and how the USA is actually governed by a shadowy cabal formed after Roswell in 1947.
more or less.
And as they're not entering illegally -- as said action is in the past -- they are not illegal immigrants. They are "merely" unlawfully in the country.
I have some, very vague, memories of this distinction being kept this way for.. P.O.Ws or some such ..? But there's every chance that's from one of the more..... interesting.. sites out there so...
reds8n wrote: And as they're not entering illegally -- as said action is in the past -- they are not illegal immigrants. They are "merely" unlawfully in the country.
But they were compelled to enter the US in a proscribed manner to be a legal immigrant, but nor complying with the law as proscribed they acted illegally and so their continued presence is still in breach of the proscribed law. Therefore they are still in the country illegally and are illegal immigrants.
(either way, they are in a country that they have no lawful right to be in)
Whilst they are in the act of breaking the legal requirement to follow the law they are illegal immigrants.
Once they have done this ( assuming they are not caught) they are unlawful citizens which is of itself not illegal, that being a civil matter.
No, they are not citizens as they have not gone through the process to become naturalised citizens (those not born in the United States who wish to become citizens). They are still immigrants, and their presence in the country is still illegal as they have not followed the proscribed path to enter the country.
Also the use of the words illegal and unlawful are not dependent on the law that is broken being either civil or criminal, merely that the law is broken.
No, they are not citizens as they have not gone through the process to become naturalised citizens (those not born in the United States who wish to become citizens). They are still immigrants, and their presence in the country is still illegal
Not it isn't..
It's unlawful.
as they have not followed the proscribed path to enter the country.
Is irrelevant once they have gotten in.
hence why places like Arizona et al drafted extra laws so their presence would be illegal.
Also the use of the words illegal and unlawful are not dependent on the law that is broken being either civil or criminal, merely that the law is broken.
You can argue unlawful vs. illegal -thats fine. Illegal alien was the term used by the federal government, which is where the term comes from.
Having said that, pending appropriate immigration process they are still illegal or unlawful. Every day they are here without following the proper process they are violating the law. The term - although interchagneable-is a correct one.
They are not citizens. Thats sophistry. Until they meet the requirements and are ACTUAL CITIZENS, they aren't. Resident would be the term you're looking for, I think.
EDIT: I'd be just fine with the term unlawful resident.
On the one hand, it's another example of a euphamism treadmilll at work. On the other, it was a gramatically poor term in the first place.
You don't call a driver that doesn't have a license or insurance an "illegal driver." You call them unliscenced or uninsured.
And there's at least some validity to the argument that the debate should be about the issue, "illegal immigration," not the people, "illegal immigrants."
What definition are you working off? I'm working off;
If the law prescribes a way of doing something and you do it differently you are doing it unlawfully
If a law prohibits or compels you to do something and you fail to abide by that lay then the action is illegal
(and, as said before, what my professors have said)
"If a law prohibits or compels you to do something and you fail to abide by that law then the action is illegal " - before entering the US you are compelled to apply for a visa as an immigrant, or complete a visa waiver that states you have permission to remain in the US for 90 days (i.e. you are compelled to leave). On this basis I believe that describing them as illegal immigrants is perfectly accurate and legitimate.
reds8n wrote: Is irrelevant once they have gotten in.
hence why places like Arizona et al drafted extra laws so their presence would be illegal.
In either event their presence is still contrary to the law of the land, and in Arizona there are additional laws because the State got fed up of the Federal government doing so little
reds8n wrote: You're right and wrong at the same time.
Like I said above, I'd like to know what definitions you're working off as that may explain our differences in opinion
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: You can argue unlawful vs. illegal -thats fine. Illegal alien was the term used by the federal government, which is where the term comes from.
Having said that, pending appropriate immigration process they are still illegal or unlawful. Every day they are here without following the proper process they are violating the law. The term - although interchagneable-is a correct one.
They are not citizens. Thats sophistry. Until they meet the requirements and are ACTUAL CITIZENS, they aren't. Resident would be the term you're looking for, I think.
Thank you. I'd forgotten to add the part about Residents (my next step once USCIS look at the paperwork we submitted back in October )
Polonius wrote: And there's at least some validity to the argument that the debate should be about the issue, "illegal immigration," not the people, "illegal immigrants."
So what do we call people who immigrated here illegally? What term do you propose which is factually accurate, and not distorting?
Polonius wrote: And there's at least some validity to the argument that the debate should be about the issue, "illegal immigration," not the people, "illegal immigrants."
So what do we call people who immigrated here illegally? What term do you propose which is factually accurate, and not distorting?
I'm not saying we call them something different. I could care less.
But the problem isn't the immigrants. You can't stop illegal immigration by cutting supply any more than you can stop any other illegal action by stopping supply. It's not like you can't get good cocaine despite the best efforts of border patrols.
It's a fairly holistic issue. Focusing on the workers, who for the most part are hard working people trying to make a living, ignores the demand part of the equation: the hundreds of thousands of Americans who hire and profit off of illegal labor.
So, this frames the debate, not as one of economic exploitation, but one of criminal actions. Which is fun, in a "guns and flag" kind of way, but ignores the fact that we have a huge class of farmers, small business owners, and householders that commit crimes by hiring the aliens.
Polonius wrote: And there's at least some validity to the argument that the debate should be about the issue, "illegal immigration," not the people, "illegal immigrants."
So what do we call people who immigrated here illegally? What term do you propose which is factually accurate, and not distorting?
I'm not saying we call them something different. I could care less.
But the problem isn't the immigrants. You can't stop illegal immigration by cutting supply any more than you can stop any other illegal action by stopping supply. It's not like you can't get good cocaine despite the best efforts of border patrols.
It's a fairly holistic issue. Focusing on the workers, who for the most part are hard working people trying to make a living, ignores the demand part of the equation: the hundreds of thousands of Americans who hire and profit off of illegal labor.
So, this frames the debate, not as one of economic exploitation, but one of criminal actions. Which is fun, in a "guns and flag" kind of way, but ignores the fact that we have a huge class of farmers, small business owners, and householders that commit crimes by hiring the aliens.
You can actually, if there is the will to do it. however, since the elites of both parties are helped by the present situation, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Polonius wrote: But the problem isn't the immigrants. You can't stop illegal immigration by cutting supply any more than you can stop any other illegal action by stopping supply. It's not like you can't get good cocaine despite the best efforts of border patrols.
You can still get cocaine, just not as much. Same principal with illegal immigration, its not a zero sum game. The issue is very much immigration itself, and especially the enforcement (or lack thereof). America is one of the softest countries in the world when it comes to illegal immigration. Politicians court them, and I can't think of many other places were you would get such vocal advocate groups for illegal immigrants, or people publicly stating they are illegal immigrants but still not being deported.
Remember how the last amnesty went?
Polonius wrote: It's a fairly holistic issue. Focusing on the workers, who for the most part are hard working people trying to make a living, ignores the demand part of the equation: the hundreds of thousands of Americans who hire and profit off of illegal labor.
So, this frames the debate, not as one of economic exploitation, but one of criminal actions. Which is fun, in a "guns and flag" kind of way, but ignores the fact that we have a huge class of farmers, small business owners, and householders that commit crimes by hiring the aliens.
As I've said elsewhere on Dakka I am very much in favour of work permits (complete with a bail and proper enforcement) for farm workers, and for penalties and sanctions for companies/individuals who hire illegal immigrants - i.e. severe financial penalties and possible prison time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: You can actually, if there is the will to do it. however, since the elites of both parties are helped by the present situation, I wouldn't hold my breath.
And I wonder how much of that is because they couldn't have been arsed to vet the staff that they used properly, so they're more worried about an embarrassing headline than the effect of 11 million largely unskilled and under educated will have on the country and those that have to compete with them for jobs.
Polonius wrote: But the problem isn't the immigrants. You can't stop illegal immigration by cutting supply any more than you can stop any other illegal action by stopping supply. It's not like you can't get good cocaine despite the best efforts of border patrols.
You can still get cocaine, just not as much. Same principal with illegal immigration, its not a zero sum game. The issue is very much immigration itself, and especially the enforcement (or lack thereof). America is one of the softest countries in the world when it comes to illegal immigration. Politicians court them, and I can't think of many other places were you would get such vocal advocate groups for illegal immigrants, or people publicly stating they are illegal immigrants but still not being deported. Remember how the last amnesty went?
I'm not advocating amnesty. I'm not advocating anything, other than pointing out that focusing the debate around the immigrants, not the employers, has succeeded wonderfully. People hate and fear guys willing to work for four bucks an hour, rather than focusing that ire on the elites that profit.
And I'm not sure about stopping the flow. 5000 people made it throught berlin wall in 30 years, and that's a couple dozen miles with a totalitarian state on one side.
Polonius wrote: It's a fairly holistic issue. Focusing on the workers, who for the most part are hard working people trying to make a living, ignores the demand part of the equation: the hundreds of thousands of Americans who hire and profit off of illegal labor.
So, this frames the debate, not as one of economic exploitation, but one of criminal actions. Which is fun, in a "guns and flag" kind of way, but ignores the fact that we have a huge class of farmers, small business owners, and householders that commit crimes by hiring the aliens.
As I've said elsewhere on Dakka I am very much in favour of work permits (complete with a bail and proper enforcement) for farm workers, and for penalties and sanctions for companies/individuals who hire illegal immigrants - i.e. severe financial penalties and possible prison time.
that's great, but right now, the only people suffering any consequences are the aliens themselves, and the working class of this country.
The oldest way to keep the middle class from overthrowing the upper is to maintain a lower class. The middle is grateful to be included in the economic and political arena, even to a liimted extent, and allows the upper to do as they please.
Economically, the common American worker has more in common with an illegal immigrant than he does with that aliens employer. And rather than demanding more from the monied class, we instead focus on the poorest.
Polonius wrote: Economically, the common American worker has more in common with an illegal immigrant than he does with that aliens employer. And rather than demanding more from the monied class, we instead focus on the poorest.
Tell that to the American workers who have had their wages depressed because of illegal immigrants, or those who can't find a job because of it.
I sadly gave up on the, "they took our jerbs!" argument a long time ago... for the most part, these are jobs that normal Americans "don't want" because we're "too good" for them...
Alfndrate wrote: I sadly gave up on the, "they took our jerbs!" argument a long time ago... for the most part, these are jobs that normal Americans "don't want" because we're "too good" for them...
In some cases you find that, but in many others (fruit picking, construction, cleaning, gardening etc.) in which the wages have been depressed by illegal immigrants being hired so the wages aren't of any benefit to those working under the table.
Polonius wrote: Economically, the common American worker has more in common with an illegal immigrant than he does with that aliens employer. And rather than demanding more from the monied class, we instead focus on the poorest.
Tell that to the American workers who have had their wages depressed because of illegal immigrants, or those who can't find a job because of it.
Exactly. We should be telling them that instead of getting pissed that somebody is willing to risk death for a crappy job, they should be pissed that somebody is willing to hire illegal workers to save money.
If you have mice in your house, are you mad at the mice? Or are you pissed at your wife for leaving food out all over the place?
The problem has always been, "illegal immigrants steal american jobs." Except, that's not the case. The problem is that employers happily give american jobs to illegal immigrants because it's cheaper.
So we have two sets of criminal actors. One group are dirt poor, hard working, and focused on trying to provide for themselves and family. The other group are varying shades of wealthy, likely hard working, and focused on gaining wealth. somehow, we overlook that fact that in a vacuum one group is clearly just doing what they can to survivie by focusing on hating brown people.
Democrats don't want to end illegal immigration because it's a huge source of future voters. Republicans dont' want to end it because small business owners and farmers are the bedrock of the party, and they're the ones that benefit most from illegal labor.
Keep in mind, the goal of the corporate right is to treat nearly all workers like illegals: no workers comp, no unemployment, no payroll taxes, no OASHA, no wage and hour laws, etc.
Polonius wrote: Exactly. We should be telling them that instead of getting pissed that somebody is willing to risk death for a crappy job, they should be pissed that somebody is willing to hire illegal workers to save money.
If you have mice in your house, are you mad at the mice? Or are you pissed at your wife for leaving food out all over the place?
The problem has always been, "illegal immigrants steal american jobs." Except, that's not the case. The problem is that employers happily give american jobs to illegal immigrants because it's cheaper.
So we have two sets of criminal actors. One group are dirt poor, hard working, and focused on trying to provide for themselves and family. The other group are varying shades of wealthy, likely hard working, and focused on gaining wealth. somehow, we overlook that fact that in a vacuum one group is clearly just doing what they can to survivie by focusing on hating brown people.
Democrats don't want to end illegal immigration because it's a huge source of future voters. Republicans dont' want to end it because small business owners and farmers are the bedrock of the party, and they're the ones that benefit most from illegal labor.
Keep in mind, the goal of the corporate right is to treat nearly all workers like illegals: no workers comp, no unemployment, no payroll taxes, no OASHA, no wage and hour laws, etc.
I was wondering when accusations of racism would start creeping in, I'm just happy to see that it took until the second page for it to happen. You can try all you want to sanitise their law breaking they're just "dirt poor, hard working, and focused on trying to provide for themselves and family" and up against exploitative racists "focusing on hating brown people", but the illegal immigrants are not guiltless party here. They made a conscious decision to enter a country in violation of its laws
Its a lot easier for me to put down poison for the mice, than it is for the wife (less questions to answer too )
Sorry, but the problem is twofold. Yes, there are people quite happy to use whatever labour regardless of source. However if that labour was not there to exploit then those unscrupulous individuals would have to pay a proper wage to Americans looking for a job.
That is why there needs to be proper enforcement to prevent, detect and deport those who should not be in the country, and why there should be significant punishments for those hiring illegal immigrants
Exactly. We should be telling them that instead of getting pissed that somebody is willing to risk death for a crappy job, they should be pissed that somebody is willing to hire illegal workers to save money.
No disagreement here. Indeed, as I've stated many times, I don't have a problem with immigrants from other countries - legal or illegal (California liberals are an exception). They are hard working people. I do have a problem with the unfettered lack of control of the border, and wilful neglect of the labor markets by using illegal labor and H1B visa labor to supress wages.
So, back to the original article, it seems to read that:
1. You don't refer to people as Illegal unless you can ascribe a source.
2. Instead of using the term "Illegal" as a lazy short hand, you are suppose to define how they ar eint he country.
So the AP for asking their journalists to focus on the facts of how someone is in the country and not use a blanket short hand statement that has a ton of different meanings to the average reader? People are mad that Journalists are being asked to report facts?
I don't get the kerfluffle. Am I missing something?
I was wondering when accusations of racism would start creeping in, I'm just happy to see that it took until the second page for it to happen. You can try all you want to sanitise their law breaking they're just "dirt poor, hard working, and focused on trying to provide for themselves and family" and up against exploitative racists "focusing on hating brown people", but the illegal immigrants are not guiltless party here. They made a conscious decision to enter a country in violation of its laws
Well, first off, it's not racism. Mexican is not a race, and most are of majority white descent.
It's easier to relate to those that are like you, and you admire (American business owners) than people that are forieng and here illegally.
The reason I cry a certain amount of bigotry is that the rage is all focused on the immigrants. yes they are criminals and yes they are breaking the law, but so are those that employ them. And nobody is mad at them. Why not?
Its a lot easier for me to put down poison for the mice, than it is for the wife (less questions to answer too ) Sorry, but the problem is twofold. Yes, there are people quite happy to use whatever labour regardless of source. However if that labour was not there to exploit then those unscrupulous individuals would have to pay a proper wage to Americans looking for a job.
That is why there needs to be proper enforcement to prevent, detect and deport those who should not be in the country, and why there should be significant punishments for those hiring illegal immigrants
Well, you rarely if ever have a supply when there isn't a demand. Nature abhors a vacuum and all that. It's really not a chicken/egg situation, although the sheer supply will increase demand, especially as wages continue to drop.
I still think it'd be easier to audit and run checks on all hires, and have serious sanctions against businesses that hire illegals. Business owners, by definiation, have something to lose. Illegal immigrants dont'. So you can spend billions guarding a massive border against people that will just keep trying to infilitrate, or you can cut off the demand with fines.
Guarding the border will never work fully, it will cost a fortune, and it will cause those in the coutnry to stay. going after employers won't wrok fully either, but it will cost a lot less, and will encourage those in country to leave by removing their only income source.
Easy E wrote: So, back to the original article, it seems to read that:
1. You don't refer to people as Illegal unless you can ascribe a source.
2. Instead of using the term "Illegal" as a lazy short hand, you are suppose to define how they ar eint he country.
So the AP for asking their journalists to focus on the facts of how someone is in the country and not use a blanket short hand statement that has a ton of different meanings to the average reader? People are mad that Journalists are being asked to report facts?
I don't get the kerfluffle. Am I missing something?
Generally in the media there has been a shift away from describing people in the country as illegal immigrants. Instead they substitute phrases such as "undocumented workers", "citizens in waiting" etc. to obscure the fact that the individuals in question are in the country illegally. It is also common for this to develop further into conflating legal and illegal immigration so we end up with claims such as "immigrants no longer welcome in the US", "America deporting record numbers of immigrants" etc. All of which conceal the true nature of the actions being reported, and designed to gain sympathy for illegal immigrants to make legal reform/amnesty etc. easier for them to gain.
Also the simple fact is that, as I said before, stating that someone is an illegal immigrant because she/he immigrated to the United States illegally is perfectly factual and far from inaccurate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: Well, first off, it's not racism. Mexican is not a race, and most are of majority white descent.
It's easier to relate to those that are like you, and you admire (American business owners) than people that are forieng and here illegally.
The reason I cry a certain amount of bigotry is that the rage is all focused on the immigrants. yes they are criminals and yes they are breaking the law, but so are those that employ them. And nobody is mad at them. Why not?
You said, and I quote, "focusing on hating brown people". You didn't say Mexican, you made a specific point of mentioning skin colour. I've been pretty clear in saying "illegal immigrant" so as not to bring race into this discussion.
Pretty sure I've also been clear on several occasions to say that people who hire illegal immigrants should be punished.
Polonius wrote: Well, you rarely if ever have a supply when there isn't a demand. Nature abhors a vacuum and all that. It's really not a chicken/egg situation, although the sheer supply will increase demand, especially as wages continue to drop.
Which is why I said that it is a twofold problem and that both the supply side (illegal immigrants) and the demand side (people hiring them) should be tackled. You tried to paint a sympathetic picture of poor hard working immigrants being up against The Man. That distorts the situation and helps to absolve those who entered the US illegally
Polonius wrote: I still think it'd be easier to audit and run checks on all hires, and have serious sanctions against businesses that hire illegals. Business owners, by definiation, have something to lose. Illegal immigrants dont'. So you can spend billions guarding a massive border against people that will just keep trying to infilitrate, or you can cut off the demand with fines.
Guarding the border will never work fully, it will cost a fortune, and it will cause those in the coutnry to stay. going after employers won't wrok fully either, but it will cost a lot less, and will encourage those in country to leave by removing their only income source.
Illegal immigrants who are caught are banned from entering the United States again for a varying period of time. So they do have something to lose. It may not be as much as the business owner, and I wouldn't spend taxpayers money jailing them either.
So what do you propose to stop people entering the US illegally through the southern border if you don't believe that guarding it will work? If the border is patrolled and people who pay to be smuggled get turned back more frequently then you may start to find that fewer people want to take the risk.
Polonius wrote: And there's at least some validity to the argument that the debate should be about the issue, "illegal immigration," not the people, "illegal immigrants."
So what do we call people who immigrated here illegally? What term do you propose which is factually accurate, and not distorting?
Just call them from what they truly are... foreign invaders.
Polonius wrote: And there's at least some validity to the argument that the debate should be about the issue, "illegal immigration," not the people, "illegal immigrants."
So what do we call people who immigrated here illegally? What term do you propose which is factually accurate, and not distorting?
Just call them from what they truly are... foreign invaders.
Nah, invaders sounds like they're warring against us... >_>
I'm kind of with Frazz on this, unlicensed residents sounds like a solid term. "Non-Resident Workers" for the group that commute across the borders every night?
Polonius wrote: And there's at least some validity to the argument that the debate should be about the issue, "illegal immigration," not the people, "illegal immigrants."
So what do we call people who immigrated here illegally? What term do you propose which is factually accurate, and not distorting?
Just call them from what they truly are... foreign invaders.
Nah, invaders sounds like they're warring against us... >_>
I'm kind of with Frazz on this, unlicensed residents sounds like a solid term. "Non-Resident Workers" for the group that commute across the borders every night?
I'm leary of creating new euphemism here...
Just call them for what they truly are... jeeze...
Polonius wrote: Well, first off, it's not racism. Mexican is not a race, and most are of majority white descent.
It's easier to relate to those that are like you, and you admire (American business owners) than people that are forieng and here illegally.
The reason I cry a certain amount of bigotry is that the rage is all focused on the immigrants. yes they are criminals and yes they are breaking the law, but so are those that employ them. And nobody is mad at them. Why not?
You said, and I quote, "focusing on hating brown people". You didn't say Mexican, you made a specific point of mentioning skin colour. I've been pretty clear in saying "illegal immigrant" so as not to bring race into this discussion.
Pretty sure I've also been clear on several occasions to say that people who hire illegal immigrants should be punished.
It was an off hand comment, but yes, I think bigotry plays a bigger role in this than most are willing to let on. The sheer focus on the them, and not the employers, by the grassroots organizations is a strong indicator that they're either bigoted or dont' understand the issue. Or, well, both.
It's not a malicious bigotry. It's reasonable to like the culture and language of your country, and not want it to change. I'm not in favor of massive immigration myself because I don't want to the nation to change dramatically like that. But I'm not going to focus my ire on the guys who are still, at the end of the day, screwed.
Which is why I said that it is a twofold problem and that both the supply side (illegal immigrants) and the demand side (people hiring them) should be tackled. You tried to paint a sympathetic picture of poor hard working immigrants being up against The Man. That distorts the situation and helps to absolve those who entered the US illegally.
I'm not sure it distorts the situation. The Man tells them, "you can't come here legally, but we're not going to check very hard once you're here. Oh, and you can make a lot of money, compared to home." I think they, like us, are up against the Man.
And I'll be honest: I've never understood the strict, law and order above all else mentality to immigration. Sure, it's a crime. So is speeding, which I do literally every time I drive. I drank under age, as did most people. A huge percentage of this country smokes weed. We absolve people of tons of crimes. I understand the criminal system well enough to know that I'm not morally outraged by somebody breaking the law.
Illegal immigrants who are caught are banned from entering the United States again for a varying period of time. So they do have something to lose. It may not be as much as the business owner, and I wouldn't spend taxpayers money jailing them either.
So what do you propose to stop people entering the US illegally through the southern border if you don't believe that guarding it will work? If the border is patrolled and people who pay to be smuggled get turned back more frequently then you may start to find that fewer people want to take the risk.
Clearly you guard the border, but if you eliminate the demand for illegal labor, there wont' be the pressure to cross illegally. We know this, because the number of people illegally crossing dropped dramatically since the recession.
Just call them for what they truly are... jeeze...
Well, I agree in that euphamisms arne't good. The problem is that many illegals aren't, ya know, immigrants. A person that does seasonal labor, or plans to work for a few years, is not an immigrant.
It's far too broad of a term when discussing any given individual, or even group of individuals.
Polonius wrote: It was an off hand comment, but yes, I think bigotry plays a bigger role in this than most are willing to let on. The sheer focus on the them, and not the employers, by the grassroots organizations is a strong indicator that they're either bigoted or dont' understand the issue. Or, well, both.
It's not a malicious bigotry. It's reasonable to like the culture and language of your country, and not want it to change. I'm not in favor of massive immigration myself because I don't want to the nation to change dramatically like that. But I'm not going to focus my ire on the guys who are still, at the end of the day, screwed.
I don't think that bigotry plays as much a role as some people would like to think that it does. Are there people who will abuse others for being different? Absolutely. But in the overwhelming majority are people who seem p*ssed off that there has been no concrete action in years, and that the government is now rewarding people who gave the law of the land a big middle finger
Polonius wrote: I'm not sure it distorts the situation. The Man tells them, "you can't come here legally, but we're not going to check very hard once you're here. Oh, and you can make a lot of money, compared to home." I think they, like us, are up against the Man.
They aren't up against The Man, if they've crossed the border illegally and are helping to suppress real wages they're helping The Man screw over low paid Americans.
Polonius wrote: And I'll be honest: I've never understood the strict, law and order above all else mentality to immigration. Sure, it's a crime. So is speeding, which I do literally every time I drive. I drank under age, as did most people. A huge percentage of this country smokes weed. We absolve people of tons of crimes. I understand the criminal system well enough to know that I'm not morally outraged by somebody breaking the law.
Its civil law, not criminal. Big difference so your comparisons are off.
The immigration system is designed so that only the right people get into a country. That those with criminal records, mental health issues, drug issues, communicable diseases, agents of hostile states etc. do not enter the country much less take up residence. Millions of people can here legally, and have family that did so within living memory. They remember what all they had to go through to get here. Now people who ignored the system decided to skip the queue, skip being vetted and walk right in and can claim all sorts of benefits and public assistance that legal migrants cannot for years.
If I entered the US illegally or out-stayed my visa then I could be banned from entering the country for anywhere from 3 years to life. Furthermore I cannot have committed a crime against moral turpitude (including SSN fraud, outstaying a visa or the like) to be allowed to enter the US. People who have entered the US illegally are now being rewarded with work permits (granted ahead of legal migrants), deferred action and now the very real possibility of amnesty. Those who committed SSN fraud will be given a small fine. People want law and order when it comes to immigration because otherwise there is no fair play and there is no point to the system of waiting your turn - it becomes a free for all.
Polonius wrote: Clearly you guard the border, but if you eliminate the demand for illegal labor, there wont' be the pressure to cross illegally. We know this, because the number of people illegally crossing dropped dramatically since the recession.
At least we agree on guarding the border. I agree that there should be legal ways to enter the US for work with a permit (but no residence or citizenship rights)
Polonius wrote: Well, I agree in that euphamisms arne't good. The problem is that many illegals aren't, ya know, immigrants. A person that does seasonal labor, or plans to work for a few years, is not an immigrant.
It's far too broad of a term when discussing any given individual, or even group of individuals.
People in those situations are usually called migratory or transient workers because they aren't setting up home in the host country and getting access to citizenship and public assistance. As well as that I believe that there is a set length of time before someone becomes a migrant, as opposed to just a visitor.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I don't think that bigotry plays as much a role as some people would like to think that it does. Are there people who will abuse others for being different? Absolutely. But in the overwhelming majority are people who seem p*ssed off that there has been no concrete action in years, and that the government is now rewarding people who gave the law of the land a big middle finger
Then why is that anger only focused on the immigrants? Why haven't states passed laws saying that under reasonable suspicsion, an employer needs to show papers on all employees?
I get why people are angry about illegal imigration. I get why they're mad at the illegals. I don't get why they aren't made at the system that tacitly condones it, or the employers. That leads me to believe that it's not some high minded sense of fair play, but simple tribal thinking.
They aren't up against The Man, if they've crossed the border illegally and are helping to suppress real wages they're helping The Man screw over low paid Americans.
I think by definition anybody engaging in illegal activity is against the man, somehow.
The immigration system is designed so that only the right people get into a country. That those with criminal records, mental health issues, drug issues, communicable diseases, agents of hostile states etc. do not enter the country much less take up residence. Millions of people can here legally, and have family that did so within living memory. They remember what all they had to go through to get here. Now people who ignored the system decided to skip the queue, skip being vetted and walk right in and can claim all sorts of benefits and public assistance that legal migrants cannot for years.
If I entered the US illegally or out-stayed my visa then I could be banned from entering the country for anywhere from 3 years to life. Furthermore I cannot have committed a crime against moral turpitude (including SSN fraud, outstaying a visa or the like) to be allowed to enter the US. People who have entered the US illegally are now being rewarded with work permits (granted ahead of legal migrants), deferred action and now the very real possibility of amnesty. Those who committed SSN fraud will be given a small fine. People want law and order when it comes to immigration because otherwise there is no fair play and there is no point to the system of waiting your turn - it becomes a free for all.
I know why, in theory, the immigration laws work the way they do. I just don't see why anybody that's removed from an immigration issue themself would care. There are plenty of examples of situations where people, corporations, etc. violate, en masse, rules for conduct. And hardly anybody cares.
People aren't mad because illegals are here. They're mad because they cost taxpayer dollars in benefits, and lower wages. But every debate seems to center on "they're breaking the law!" like we're a nation of Judge Dredds. In nearly any other area, most people see a clear distinciton between morality and the law.
Polonius wrote: Then why is that anger only focused on the immigrants? Why haven't states passed laws saying that under reasonable suspicsion, an employer needs to show papers on all employees?
Legitimate employers have to e-verify staff, when my wife got a part time job a quarter of the new hires disappeared when they found out they'd have to prove their status in the US
Polonius wrote: I get why people are angry about illegal imigration. I get why they're mad at the illegals. I don't get why they aren't made at the system that tacitly condones it, or the employers. That leads me to believe that it's not some high minded sense of fair play, but simple tribal thinking.
Because they want people to be responsible for their actions? Or maybe they're angry at the government for not doing what they are supposed to do by regulating the border
Polonius wrote: I think by definition anybody engaging in illegal activity is against the man, somehow.
Even murder, rape and child abuse?
Polonius wrote: I know why, in theory, the immigration laws work the way they do. I just don't see why anybody that's removed from an immigration issue themself would care. There are plenty of examples of situations where people, corporations, etc. violate, en masse, rules for conduct. And hardly anybody cares.
So you don't see why a person should be concerned about letting criminals, addicts, people with mental health problems and communicable diseases into the country, the depression of wages, the strain on welfare, diverting resources away from citizens etc.
Polonius wrote: People aren't mad because illegals are here. They're mad because they cost taxpayer dollars in benefits, and lower wages. But every debate seems to center on "they're breaking the law!" like we're a nation of Judge Dredds. In nearly any other area, most people see a clear distinciton between morality and the law.
Yes people are mad because there are illegals here, and because of that there are social and economic impacts. People are mad that the government that they elected aren't doing anything meaningful to prevent illegal immigration, but are instead looking to grant amnesty.
When there is a clear cut law that says that people here illegally should not be allowed in the country then its pretty obvious as to why they get upset when its not being enforced. It sends out the wrong message.
Where is the morality in having a system to let desirable people immigrate to the US an go through the entire procedure, when the government has no problem giving preferential treatment to those who skip their turn and who may not even be eligible to enter the country. People keep saying that illegal immigrants are breaking the law because the law should oblige the government to act to uphold it. If the government refuse then they are surrendering their authority and showing that they have no interest in the application of the law as written, no interest in fairness and no interest in natural justice.
I see your point, you just don't seem to be hearing mine, which is that I'm puzzled why the grassroots activism seems entirely aimed at the immigrants, not at the rest of the system that brings them here.
Until I see activism that targets the employers, I'm going to assume that while the anger is justified, the aiming is based on bigotry. Criminal employers are doing just as much to bring illegals here as they workers themselves, yet they are seen in a generally positive light. Start boycotting businesses that employ illegals, start pushing for tighter hiring checks, etc., and I'll join in. Keep yelling about illegals stealing jobs, and I'm bored.
And that is why focusing on people, and not the problem, is poor wriitng. It frames the issue as being criminals vs. society. It's not that simple: our society, at least big chunks of it, loves illegal imigration. Hell, as offensive as it is, calling 'em "wetbacks" is more accurate to the situation.
Language is fun and you can play all kinds of games. Since they are not following the proper immigration channels is it even proper to call them immigrants? You could use the words interlopers or intruders if you wanted to. Call them unlawful immigration intruders.
Look people know what an illegal immigrant is, and this is just another diversionary tactic. Eventually whatever they are called some people will use it as a slur and then what? Will they have to change it again.
Illegal employers should face deportation too. That would be a great punishment for them.
Look people know what an illegal immigrant is, and this is just another diversionary tactic. Eventually whatever they are called some people will use it as a slur and then what? Will they have to change it again.
They do, but that might not be accurate. It would be like if AP made a rule saying that you can't call people "educators." Yes, people know what that means, but there's a big difference between a college professor and a pre-school aide.
Is the article discussing illegals working as migrnats? What about those with children here? What's the full story?
it's also consistent with a lot of language, where it's common but informal to use a term for a condition or status for the individual (see: mental retardation).
And, frankly, why would a story matter if a person is an illegal immigrant? If they are working, say they are working illegally. Actions are illegal. People aren't.
Polonius wrote: I see your point, you just don't seem to be hearing mine, which is that I'm puzzled why the grassroots activism seems entirely aimed at the immigrants, not at the rest of the system that brings them here.
Until I see activism that targets the employers, I'm going to assume that while the anger is justified, the aiming is based on bigotry. Criminal employers are doing just as much to bring illegals here as they workers themselves, yet they are seen in a generally positive light. Start boycotting businesses that employ illegals, start pushing for tighter hiring checks, etc., and I'll join in. Keep yelling about illegals stealing jobs, and I'm bored.
So in the absence of any actual evidence you just assume racism and bigotry?
As I said before illegal immigrants are being targeted because they are responsible for entering the country illegally. They are responsible for their actions. and should be punished. The same way that the employers who hire them should which I've also said before. You're just too wrapped up in trying to fight "The Man" and the system to see that.
Polonius wrote: And that is why focusing on people, and not the problem, is poor wriitng. It frames the issue as being criminals vs. society. It's not that simple: our society, at least big chunks of it, loves illegal imigration. Hell, as offensive as it is, calling 'em "wetbacks" is more accurate to the situation.
Once again, illegal immigration is not criminal. Its about those who want to ignore the law and then seek preferential treatment vs. society
So you assume that grass roots activists are racist and bigoted for targeting their efforts on the people entering illegally, but you have no problem advocating that illegal immigrants should be described using a pejorative?
Polonius wrote: I see your point, you just don't seem to be hearing mine, which is that I'm puzzled why the grassroots activism seems entirely aimed at the immigrants, not at the rest of the system that brings them here.
Until I see activism that targets the employers, I'm going to assume that while the anger is justified, the aiming is based on bigotry. Criminal employers are doing just as much to bring illegals here as they workers themselves, yet they are seen in a generally positive light. Start boycotting businesses that employ illegals, start pushing for tighter hiring checks, etc., and I'll join in. Keep yelling about illegals stealing jobs, and I'm bored.
So in the absence of any actual evidence you just assume racism and bigotry? As I said before illegal immigrants are being targeted because they are responsible for entering the country illegally. They are responsible for their actions. and should be punished. The same way that the employers who hire them should which I've also said before. You're just too wrapped up in trying to fight "The Man" and the system to see that.
do you really think there is no evidence of anti-immigrant bigotry in the US?
One of the unfortunate side effects of the PC movement of the 1990s has been to develop a sort of innate denial of anything remotely racist by people. Which is sad, because it's prevented any real progress over the last 15 years. Of course there is bigotry. Every psychological study performed on the subject shows that people relate easier, and generally prefer, people of similar race and backbround. It's human nature, we're tribal beings. We know that once we know a person, they are a person. But when it comes to people, we take every shortcut we can.
think of it this way: a white guy and black guy are robbing a store. Two white cops show up, and start beating the crap out of the black guy. The white guy just walks away. Is there direct evidence of racism? No. Is there pretty strong circumstantial evidence? I think so.
What other reason, other than relatively normal xenophobia, is there for anger aimed at immigrants but not at the employers?
Once again, illegal immigration is not criminal. Its about those who want to ignore the law and then seek preferential treatment vs. society So you assume that grass roots activists are racist and bigoted for targeting their efforts on the people entering illegally, but you have no problem advocating that illegal immigrants should be described using a pejorative?
Well, i have a problem with it, which is why I prefaced it with the word offensive. But my broader point was that I'd rather see an accurate slur than half accurate term.
And I don't think the activists are bigots. I think they're allowing biases rooted in bigotry to influence their message, to their own detriment. They aren't doing anything to better themselves by making it harder to sneak in.
For the record, I've got zero personal problem with illegal immigraiton. I live in Ohio, my produce is cheaper, and until they start hiring undocumented lawyers in the Federal Government, my job is safe. I think that it's a social issue that's not about illegals vs. us. It's about the ruling class vs. the working class. And until then, the ruling class is going to profit off of illegal labor, while profitting off of massive contracts to try to keep the illegals out.
Immigrants are like guns: they aren't the problem. The people that use them are.
Polonius wrote: do you really think there is no evidence of anti-immigrant bigotry in the US?
One of the unfortunate side effects of the PC movement of the 1990s has been to develop a sort of innate denial of anything remotely racist by people. Which is sad, because it's prevented any real progress over the last 15 years. Of course there is bigotry. Every psychological study performed on the subject shows that people relate easier, and generally prefer, people of similar race and backbround. It's human nature, we're tribal beings. We know that once we know a person, they are a person. But when it comes to people, we take every shortcut we can.
think of it this way: a white guy and black guy are robbing a store. Two white cops show up, and start beating the crap out of the black guy. The white guy just walks away. Is there direct evidence of racism? No. Is there pretty strong circumstantial evidence? I think so.
What other reason, other than relatively normal xenophobia, is there for anger aimed at immigrants but not at the employers?
So you still don't have evidence, just a terrible comparative peace and your own opinion. Moving along....
Polonius wrote: Well, i have a problem with it, which is why I prefaced it with the word offensive. But my broader point was that I'd rather see an accurate slur than half accurate term.
But you're still advocating for a racial perjorative to be used to describe them that is not based on their actions. So that's hardly "accurate"
I had a co-worker who had family that were Irish (pasty, white and Irish) working in American bars illegally because he stayed on after his visa ran out. Was he still a "wetback"?
Polonius wrote: And I don't think the activists are bigots. I think they're allowing biases rooted in bigotry to influence their message, to their own detriment. They aren't doing anything to better themselves by making it harder to sneak in.
So they're not bigots, just guided by "relatively normal xenophobia"... Glad we cleared that up then.....
I'd hate to think that people were decrying illegal immigration and not bringing race or national origin into it.....
Polonius wrote: Immigrants are like guns: they aren't the problem. The people that use them are.
Guns are inanimate objects with no will of their own. People are not.
Because diverting millions of dollars annually in resources and driving down wages isn't a problem?
Which states that while hate crimes overall are declining, they are rising against latinos.
But you're still advocating for a racial perjorative to be used to describe them that is not based on their actions. So that's hardly "accurate"
I had a co-worker who had family that were Irish (pasty, white and Irish) working in American bars illegally because he stayed on after his visa ran out. Was he still a "wetback"?
No, because nobody, outside of the feds, care about Europeans here illegally.
And I'm not advocating for its use. If you want to win points for showing that i'm a terrible bigot, then I'll stop trying to clarfiy and allow you a victory dance. But if our goal is to avoid euphamism, let's not forget that illegal immigrant is one too.
So they're not bigots, just guided by "relatively normal xenophobia"... Glad we cleared that up then.....
I'd hate to think that people were decrying illegal immigration and not bringing race or national origin into it.....
Find me somebody angry about illegal immigrants that aren't latino (or maybe southeast asian) and I'll believe your argument.
Guns are inanimate objects with no will of their own. People are not.
Fair point. Given the size of the sample, I think it's safe to say that we've move beyond personal choice and into statistics. Meaning, if there are so many mexicans, and so many jobs in the US, a certain number will make that choice. But you are correct: they do make the choice.
Because diverting millions of dollars annually in resources and driving down wages isn't a problem?
It's a huge problem that screws over the poor. And they should be mad about it. And they are. But not at the people encouraging the problem to exist. Which baffles me.
I dont' consider it offensive. It's less clunky than "immigrant residing illegally."
There is sort of a global trend to not label people by any given status. It's people first language, so you have a person with a disabiltiy instead of a disabled person, or even "the disabled."
The APs point, which I think is a good one, is that any time a person's immigration status is relevant to a story, it should be clear. Rather than saying, "Jim smith, an illegal immigrant..." its better journalism to say "Jim Smith, here on an expired visa and working as a dishwasher."
And if their immigration status is not relevant, it shouldnt' be in the copy at all.
Which states that while hate crimes overall are declining, they are rising against latinos.
Correlation does not imply causation, so you're out of luck unless you have something more concrete.
But you're still advocating for a racial perjorative to be used to describe them that is not based on their actions. So that's hardly "accurate"
I had a co-worker who had family that were Irish (pasty, white and Irish) working in American bars illegally because he stayed on after his visa ran out. Was he still a "wetback"?
Polonius wrote: No, because nobody, outside of the feds, care about Europeans here illegally.
And I'm not advocating for its use. If you want to win points for showing that i'm a terrible bigot, then I'll stop trying to clarfiy and allow you a victory dance.
Yes you are advocating for its use, you even said as much because you thought it was accurate. No one cares? Everything I read and hear talks about illegal immigrants, not illegal Latino immigrants etc. You're the one bringing race into this discussion.
Polonius wrote: Find me somebody angry about illegal immigrants that aren't latino (or maybe southeast asian) and I'll believe your argument.
So its xenophobic because you haven't seen a Latino argue against illegal immigrants? Pretty sketchy logic there.
Polonius wrote: It's a huge problem that screws over the poor. And they should be mad about it. And they are. But not at the people encouraging the problem to exist. Which baffles me.
The people allowing it to exist are those who enter illegally or outstay their visas, those getting away with flaunting immigration law are encouraging the problem to exist as it shows that others can get away with it.
No, because nobody, outside of the feds, care about Europeans here illegally.
People don't care because as a percentage of the illegal immigrants they are truly a small faction and for the most part you never hear about them. Every once in awhile you hear about a group of Russian illegal mafia, but that's really about it. Lets face it there is more to illegally immigrating to the US from Europe than just hopping a fence, hell sometimes you don't even have to do that.
The hoops that I and my wife had to jump through to get her here were pretty elaborate and expensive, including showing financial security and responsibility that we will make enough money so that she will not have to live off the government. She's a Doctor who will pay lots taxes and in general be a benefit to society and still she almost got deported. It's not easy to legally immigrate, and it shouldn't be. You should have to prove that you are not going to drain the system like many of the illegals do, that you are going to try to assimilate into society and and be a blessing, not a burden.
The APs point, which I think is a good one, is that any time a person's immigration status is relevant to a story, it should be clear. Rather than saying, "Jim smith, an illegal immigrant..." its better journalism to say "Jim Smith, here on an expired visa and working as a dishwasher."
And if their immigration status is not relevant, it shouldnt' be in the copy at all.
Or "Juan Fernandez who was brought over to the US unlawfully with his baby mamma and 7 children by a coyote". I think these are the ones people are really concerned about, not people who have expired visa or are just stuck in legal limbo.
Who is to judge what is relevant? If John smith goes on a shooting spree, it may be important to track if he is an illegal immigrant. I know profiling is a bad word, but well it does tell a story.
No, because nobody, outside of the feds, care about Europeans here illegally.
People don't care because as a percentage of the illegal immigrants they are truly a small faction and for the most part you never hear about them. Every once in awhile you hear about a group of Russian illegal mafia, but that's really about it. Lets face it there is more to illegally immigrating to the US from Europe than just hopping a fence, hell sometimes you don't even have to do that.
The hoops that I and my wife had to jump through to get her here were pretty elaborate and expensive, including showing financial security and responsibility that we will make enough money so that she will not have to live off the government. She's a Doctor who will pay lots taxes and in general be a benefit to society and still she almost got deported. It's not easy to legally immigrate, and it shouldn't be. You should have to prove that you are not going to drain the system like many of the illegals do, that you are going to try to assimilate into society and and be a blessing, not a burden.
Yup, to come here legally (in my case with an American wife) you have to;
Have a background check performed by Homeland Security
Disclose any and all convictions/cautions etc.
Have a medical to ensure you do not carry any communicable disease, have any addictions or mental health issues
Be vaccinated against certain diseases
Provide an afadavit that you will not become a public charge for at least 10 years
Have an interview
And if their immigration status is not relevant, it shouldnt' be in the copy at all.
I disagree - they are breaking the law. You wouldn't exclude the information that someone is a thief or sex offender either (not to say those are equal crimes), but all of them are criminals. What makes sense to me is not mentioning e.g. someone's skin color, but if someone is a criminal, I don't see why one should neglect that fact :/
And if their immigration status is not relevant, it shouldnt' be in the copy at all.
I disagree - they are breaking the law. You wouldn't exclude the information that someone is a thief or sex offender either (not to say those are equal crimes), but all of them are criminals. What makes sense to me is not mentioning e.g. someone's skin color, but if someone is a criminal, I don't see why one should neglect that fact :/
"All units be on the look out for a guy that robbed a bank. I can't describe him as that is profiling....so stop everyone in saggy jeans and a long white t shirt, ask them nicely and take them on their word....that is all."
"All units, sorry scratch that. Just Jeans and a t-shirt, adding saggy jeans and white t-shirt is culturally biased, although the description is accurate it is discriminatory, so just stop every one!"
I get the feeling that there is no evience that could satisfy you.
Yes you are advocating for its use, you even said as much because you thought it was accurate.
Just because something is accurate does not mean it should be used. I write disability decisions. It would be more accurate to call half the applicants worthless welfare queens. Accurate, but not advised.
But, you want to score your points. Consider them won.
No one cares? Everything I read and hear talks about illegal immigrants, not illegal Latino immigrants etc. You're the one bringing race into this discussion.
Actually, I'm not. You are. I'm bringing hispanic origin into it, to be fair, but that ain't a race.
And nobody is openly bigoted anymore, wtih a few exceptions. And a big chunk of the population, yourself apparently included, seems to think that as long as you don't include demographic limitaitons in terms like "illegal immigrant," you can't be bigoted.
Polonius wrote: Find me somebody angry about illegal immigrants that aren't latino (or maybe southeast asian) and I'll believe your argument.
So its xenophobic because you haven't seen a Latino argue against illegal immigrants? Pretty sketchy logic there.
No, I haven't seen anybody argue that we need to crack down on illegal immigrants that aren't latino.
The people allowing it to exist are those who enter illegally or outstay their visas, those getting away with flaunting immigration law are encouraging the problem to exist as it shows that others can get away with it.
So you're saying that employers are less culpable, if so, why? And if not, why shouldn't people be just as mad at them?
And if their immigration status is not relevant, it shouldnt' be in the copy at all.
I disagree - they are breaking the law. You wouldn't exclude the information that someone is a thief or sex offender either (not to say those are equal crimes), but all of them are criminals. What makes sense to me is not mentioning e.g. someone's skin color, but if someone is a criminal, I don't see why one should neglect that fact :/
Well, you'd only mention those things if they are relevant to the story.
I mean, it's not like you'd read a piece about a new restaurant and it would mention that the head chef has four DUIs.
If it's a story about illegal immigration, it's relevant, but needs more development. If it's a story about, say, the construction industry and how it's adapting to a new code or ordinance, it'd be weird to see that a person is an illegal immigrant.
Tanton shared his racist ideas with leaders of the many projects he funded. In 1996, for example, he wrote Roy Beck, head of the immigration restrictionist group NumbersUSA (and then an employee of Tanton’s U.S. Inc.), questioning whether Latinos were capable of governing California. “I have no doubt that individual minority persons can assimilate to the culture necessary to run an advanced society,” Tanton said in his letter to Beck, “but if through mass migration, the culture of the homeland is transplanted from Latin America to California, then my guess is we will see the same degree of success with governmental and social institutions that we have seen in Latin America.” Referring to the changing California public schools, Tanton wondered “whether the minorities who are going to inherit California (85% of the lower-grade school children are now ‘minorities’ — demography is destiny) can run an advanced society?”
Is that really racist? He is saying that if Cali becomes all Latino it will become a defacto latino state, run like a latino state and being as successful as most latino states in central and south America. I don't see that as racist, it makes common sense. Look at French Canada, its very much different from the rest of Canada...is it racist to say that might be because of the French influence?
This article is so biased it is actually pretty funny. Its like the anti Fox news! Sure there are points, but most of it is just taken way over the top and demonized that it becomes worthless.
If it's a story about illegal immigration, it's relevant, but needs more development. If it's a story about, say, the construction industry and how it's adapting to a new code or ordinance, it'd be weird to see that a person is an illegal immigrant.
That would be weird and I never see that. So it's okay to mention "illegal immigrant" it if it's an issue based on either immigration or illegal activity....ok sounds fair.
So if Vasisly Romanov gets in the newspaper for a school shooting it would be ok to mention that he is an illegal immigrant becuase the story is about his other illegal activities.
H.B.M.C. wrote: gak... the Press Council of Australia has already make 'illegal immigrant' something that basically can't be said.
I mean, why call a spade a spade when you can call it something utterly different...
Because merely using the term spade can get you in trouble.
You actually can't call a spade a spade because the term spade which originally means a type of shovel, but different enough to warrant a different name, Hence the saying, is now deemed a racial slur! So you may not actually call a spade a spade.
I once got called into human resources because I said "Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black". Someone mistook it for a racial slur
Oh and just because group you don't like starts waiving a flag about an issue to the point they become the mouthpeice doesn't make the issue less important. Look at the bank scandal, I wouldn't associate myself with most of the people (hippies, tin hat lonnies, and the lazy) that were part of the 99% sit ins. That doesn't make the issue worthless. Sometimes the champions of an issue are scumbags (white supremacists and racists) , that does not mean the issue is scummy.
I don't blame Mexicans at all for coming into this country anyway they can. Mexico is a hellhole, thanks to the cartels and the people who support them with drug purchases. Add in the businesses and farms willing to hire people with no documentation along with lack of prosecution for the owners and I would say as a nation, we set the stage for these events.
their continued presence is still in breach of the proscribed law
No it isn't.
Whilst they are in the act of breaking the legal requirement to follow the law they are illegal immigrants.
Once they have done this ( assuming they are not caught) they are unlawful citizens which is of itself not illegal, that being a civil matter.
I'm sure someone's already pointed out how hilariously, hilariously wrong this is, but I can't be bothered to go through another page and a half of people desperately trying to argue that criminal behavior isn't criminal behavior because they want a seat on the PC Train, so...
But describing an immigrant as illegal is legally inaccurate. Being in the U.S. without proper documents is a civil offense, not a criminal one. (Underscoring this reality, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority opinion on SB 1070, Arizona’s controversial immigration law: “As a general rule, it is not a crime for a movable alien to remain in the United States.”) In a country that believes in due process of the law, calling an immigrant illegal is akin to calling a defendant awaiting trial a criminal.
Migrant workers residing unlawfully in the U.S. are not -- and never have been -- criminals. They are subject to deportation, through a civil administrative procedure that differs from criminal prosecution, and where judges have wide discretion to allow certain foreign nationals to remain here.
Immigration ruling leaves questions Ariz. Gov. Brewer: This is not the end Toobin: Guidance from court not clear
Another misconception is that the vast majority of migrant workers currently out of status sneak across our southern border in the middle of the night. Actually, almost half enter the U.S. with a valid tourist or work visa and overstay their allotted time. Many go to school, find a job, get married and start a family. And some even join the Marine Corps, like Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez, who was the first combat veteran to die in the Iraq War. While he was granted American citizenship posthumously, there are another 38,000 non-citizens in uniform, including undocumented immigrants, defending our country.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and three other justices, stated: "As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States." The court also ruled that it was not a crime to seek or engage in unauthorized employment.
As Kennedy explained, removal of an unauthorized migrant is a civil matter where even if the person is out of status, federal officials have wide discretion to determine whether deportation makes sense. For example, if an unauthorized person is trying to support his family by working or has "children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service," officials may let him stay. Also, if individuals or their families might be politically persecuted or harmed upon return to their country of origin, they may also remain in the United States.
I get the feeling that there is no evience that could satisfy you.
If you actually provide evidence then I'll let you know. That essay just documents that there are more, what they term, "Nativist groups" in existence. It doesn't show a rise in violence against Latinos, nor does it tie a rise in violence (if any) to immigration issues.
Its also worth pointing out that the essay you linked to also conflates legal and illegal immigration, and mentions that these groups are motivated by conspiracy theories so that doesn't overwhelm me about its prospects for accuracy. Notwithstanding the charge that the SPLC has long been accused of casting its net wide to classify many groups as hate groups. In fact reading hoe the SPLC describes people who voice concerns over immigration I'm a little concerned.
Polonius wrote: Actually, I'm not. You are. I'm bringing hispanic origin into it, to be fair, but that ain't a race.
That's not correct is it? I mention illegal immigrants, you mention Latinos and "hating brown people".
Polonius wrote: And nobody is openly bigoted anymore, wtih a few exceptions. And a big chunk of the population, yourself apparently included, seems to think that as long as you don't include demographic limitaitons in terms like "illegal immigrant," you can't be bigoted.
So saying that people should be equal before immigration law, with no reference to race, nationality etc. means I'm a bigot? That has got to be one of the most baseless accusations I've heard.
Polonius wrote: No, I haven't seen anybody argue that we need to crack down on illegal immigrants that aren't latino.
You haven't been reading my posts very well then, or countless others who want illegal immigrants removed and who don't mention their race/ethnicity/country of origin. Or do we have to have a disclaimer?
Polonius wrote: So you're saying that employers are less culpable, if so, why? And if not, why shouldn't people be just as mad at them?
If you still have to ask that question after I have repeatedly said that employers should be fined and/or jailed for hiring illegal immigrants then I'm starting to think that you're just stirring the pot
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: gak... the Press Council of Australia has already make 'illegal immigrant' something that basically can't be said.
I mean, why call a spade a spade when you can call it something utterly different...
Yup, we can't call someone who immigrates illegally an illegal immigrant, but we have no problem calling someone convicted of a crime a criminal
But describing an immigrant as illegal is legally inaccurate. Being in the U.S. without proper documents is a civil offense, not a criminal one. (Underscoring this reality, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority opinion on SB 1070, Arizona’s controversial immigration law: “As a general rule, it is not a crime for a movable alien to remain in the United States.”) In a country that believes in due process of the law, calling an immigrant illegal is akin to calling a defendant awaiting trial a criminal.
Migrant workers residing unlawfully in the U.S. are not -- and never have been -- criminals. They are subject to deportation, through a civil administrative procedure that differs from criminal prosecution, and where judges have wide discretion to allow certain foreign nationals to remain here.
Immigration ruling leaves questions Ariz. Gov. Brewer: This is not the end Toobin: Guidance from court not clear
Another misconception is that the vast majority of migrant workers currently out of status sneak across our southern border in the middle of the night. Actually, almost half enter the U.S. with a valid tourist or work visa and overstay their allotted time. Many go to school, find a job, get married and start a family. And some even join the Marine Corps, like Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez, who was the first combat veteran to die in the Iraq War. While he was granted American citizenship posthumously, there are another 38,000 non-citizens in uniform, including undocumented immigrants, defending our country.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and three other justices, stated: "As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States." The court also ruled that it was not a crime to seek or engage in unauthorized employment.
As Kennedy explained, removal of an unauthorized migrant is a civil matter where even if the person is out of status, federal officials have wide discretion to determine whether deportation makes sense. For example, if an unauthorized person is trying to support his family by working or has "children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service," officials may let him stay. Also, if individuals or their families might be politically persecuted or harmed upon return to their country of origin, they may also remain in the United States.
This is the conflation of illegal and criminal I mentioned earlier. Their acts are illegal (contrary to the law) yes, they are not criminal (contrary to criminal law). No one is trying to describe them as "Criminal Immigrants", but as illegal immigrants.
The fact that a Pulitzer winning journalist, and others in the industry seem to be willingly conflating the two is pathetic.
Polonius wrote: The APs point, which I think is a good one, is that any time a person's immigration status is relevant to a story, it should be clear. Rather than saying, "Jim smith, an illegal immigrant..." its better journalism to say "Jim Smith, here on an expired visa and working as a dishwasher."
And if their immigration status is not relevant, it shouldnt' be in the copy at all.
Polonius nails it.
This is about improving Journalistic integrity and getting the facts, not some pro-immigration/amnesty tool.
This is about improving Journalistic integrity and getting the facts, not some pro-immigration/amnesty tool.
No, its about distorting facts and sanatising the truth. These changes were proposed by an illegal immigrant. I don't think you can use the phrase "Journalistic integrity" when the journalists in question, including a Pulitzer prize winner, are deliberately confusing illegal and criminal acts to make their case.
Polonius wrote: The APs point, which I think is a good one, is that any time a person's immigration status is relevant to a story, it should be clear. Rather than saying, "Jim smith, an illegal immigrant..." its better journalism to say "Jim Smith, here on an expired visa and working as a dishwasher."
And if their immigration status is not relevant, it shouldnt' be in the copy at all.
Polonius nails it.
This is about improving Journalistic integrity and getting the facts, not some pro-immigration/amnesty tool.
There's no improvement in journalistic integrity whatsoever, unless by that you mean following Democratic Party talking points.
Relapse wrote: I'm about three quarters of the way to thinking of illegals as refugees instead, given the stories I hear from them about what's happening down there.
Even those not from Mexico? Damn those cartels, making life a misery for Chinese, Indians, Irish etc.
Relapse wrote: I'm about three quarters of the way to thinking of illegals as refugees instead, given the stories I hear from them about what's happening down there.
Even those not from Mexico? Damn those cartels, making life a misery for Chinese, Indians, Irish etc.
Hah, got me!
Automatically Appended Next Post: There is a dodge some Mexicans use by creating a small business in Mexico, along the lines of a tiny store or the like.
They then come up here, get a job, and send a minimal amount of money back to keep the business open. This way they get to stay in this country indefinitly as someone promoting international trade.
I'm not sure of all the legal loopholes gone through, but I've seen it in action a time or two from people who have been in this country for years.
Relapse wrote: I'm about three quarters of the way to thinking of illegals as refugees instead, given the stories I hear from them about what's happening down there.
Wish we had a process in place for refugees to get in legally.
Refugee status or asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion.
Refugees
Refugee status is a form of protection that may be granted to people who meet the definition of refugee and who are of special humanitarian concern to the United States. Refugees are generally people outside of their country who are unable or unwilling to return home because they fear serious harm. For a legal definition of refugee, see section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
You may seek a referral for refugee status only from outside of the United States. For more information about refugees, see the “Refugees” section.
Asylum
Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:
Meet the definition of refugee
Are already in the United States
Are seeking admission at a port of entry
You may apply for asylum in the United States regardless of your country of origin or your current immigration status. For more information about asylum status, see the “Asylum” section.
Nah, my bleeding heart tells me that those standards are far too harsh. The hurdle to get over needs to be so low that as long as I want to come here, I can claim refugee status. It's the only way to guarantee political majority for the party I support we don't become fascists.
d-usa wrote: Man, I hate it when news organizations make up new terms and titles for people.
Like "wealthy people" becoming "job creators" without whom we would be sitting on the streets looking for work.
When will this madness stop?
Well we can start calling;
Stabbings - unlicensed surgeries
Bank robbery - unauthorised withdrawals
Drug dealers - undocumented pharmacists
Murders - extreme late term abortions
Drink drivers - substance utilising mechanical vehicle operators
So, the argument is basically, "since this change may in some way help the Democratic party, it is inherently bad."
You are literally arguing that providing more detail, while avoiding a blanket term, is "distorting the facts." That's actually being more specific, which is usually a case of increasing the amount of facts.
I have no problem with the term, but i'm neither an immigration expert nor a journalist. I do write for a living, and I know that there are lot of times where I avoid using commonly understood terms or phrases, and instead use a more specific, accurate, and appropriate term. It's called good writing.
Polonius wrote: So, the argument is basically, "since this change may in some way help the Democratic party, it is inherently bad."
You are literally arguing that providing more detail, while avoiding a blanket term, is "distorting the facts." That's actually being more specific, which is usually a case of increasing the amount of facts.
No, the argument is that there's no reason to stop using a perfectly legitimate and accurate descriptor because some people feel that it has a pejorative connotation. Which, even if it does, there's absolutely no reason not to refer to illegal conduct in a pejorative sense.
Seaward wrote: No, the argument is that there's no reason to stop using a perfectly legitimate and accurate descriptor because some people feel that it has a pejorative connotation. Which, even if it does, there's absolutely no reason not to refer to illegal conduct in a pejorative sense.
Except for the fact that it's not accurate. Not always. Which I think is the point.
Imagine if every crime story involving a repeat felon simply referred to them as "ex-con." It's true, and legitimate, but wouldn't you, as a reader, want to know if they were a murderer or a money launderer?
I'd rather read copy that explains the nature of their illegal residency, rather than uses a blanket term. Keep in mind that this is AP, which means it's not publishing opinion. How, exactly, would the term "illegal immigrant" be a better choice in a story than a more precise explanation of their residency status?
Polonius wrote: So, the argument is basically, "since this change may in some way help the Democratic party, it is inherently bad."
You are literally arguing that providing more detail, while avoiding a blanket term, is "distorting the facts." That's actually being more specific, which is usually a case of increasing the amount of facts.
I have no problem with the term, but i'm neither an immigration expert nor a journalist. I do write for a living, and I know that there are lot of times where I avoid using commonly understood terms or phrases, and instead use a more specific, accurate, and appropriate term. It's called good writing.
No, the argument is that by trying to call immigrants who are in a county illegally something other than what they are is distorting the facts and shaping the debate. Especially when the change in phraseology has been proposed by a Pulitzer prize winning illegal immigrant who deliberately confuses illegal (against the law) and criminal (against criminal law) to make his point.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: [
No, the argument is that by trying to call immigrants who are in a county illegally something other than what they are is distorting the facts and shaping the debate.
Which would be true if they were calling them something inaccurate, or a euphamism. Their policy seems to be to specify the nature of their residency, including its legality. That's saying, "George, a twice convicted jaywalker," instead of "George, a criminal."
Especially when the change in phraseology has been proposed by a Pulitzer prize winning illegal immigrant who deliberately confuses illegal (against the law) and criminal (against criminal law) to make his point.
I guess I don't care much who proposes a change. I look at the merits.
Polonius wrote: Except for the fact that it's not accurate. Not always. Which I think is the point.
Imagine if every crime story involving a repeat felon simply referred to them as "ex-con." It's true, and legitimate, but wouldn't you, as a reader, want to know if they were a murderer or a money launderer?
I'd rather read copy that explains the nature of their illegal residency, rather than uses a blanket term. Keep in mind that this is AP, which means it's not publishing opinion. How, exactly, would the term "illegal immigrant" be a better choice in a story than a more precise explanation of their residency status?
It's not a blanket term, though. As I said, it's an accurate descriptor. It's not calling a money launderer a generic criminal, it's calling a money launderer a money launderer. An illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant.
Polonius wrote: Which would be true if they were calling them something inaccurate, or a euphamism. Their policy seems to be to specify the nature of their residency, including its legality. That's saying, "George, a twice convicted jaywalker," instead of "George, a criminal."
You mean like "undocumented immigrant", "citizen in waiting"? Both these have been used to describe illegal immigrants to conceal their law breaking. If you want to "specify the nature of their residency" its quite simple - they are immigrants who are here illegally, therefore they are "illegal immigrants". Perfectly accurate and factual
Polonius wrote: I guess I don't care much who proposes a change. I look at the merits
You're right. I can't imagine why you would want to look at who proposes a change when he has a vested interest in shaping the debate in his favour, and who has been an advocate for illegal immigrants getting right above legal migrants.
Seaward wrote: It's not a blanket term, though. As I said, it's an accurate descriptor. It's not calling a money launderer a generic criminal, it's calling a money launderer a money launderer. An illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant.
Can you think of a sentence in which the term "illegal immigrant" is more appropriate than a more specific descriptor?
I'm genuinely curious. I think the argument that the term is legitimate is a decent one, I just find the counter argument that a complex issue should use accurate language more compelling.
Polonius wrote: I guess I don't care much who proposes a change. I look at the merits
You're right. I can't imagine why you would want to look at who proposes a change when he has a vested interest in shaping the debate in his favour, and who has been an advocate for illegal immigrants getting right above legal migrants.
Actually, now that I think about it, I'm shocked that a person recommended a policy change that benefits himself or people he relates to. Because that so rarely happens.
Seaward wrote: No, the argument is that there's no reason to stop using a perfectly legitimate and accurate descriptor because some people feel that it has a pejorative connotation. Which, even if it does, there's absolutely no reason not to refer to illegal conduct in a pejorative sense.
Except for the fact that it's not accurate. Not always. Which I think is the point.
Imagine if every crime story involving a repeat felon simply referred to them as "ex-con." It's true, and legitimate, but wouldn't you, as a reader, want to know if they were a murderer or a money launderer?
I'd rather read copy that explains the nature of their illegal residency, rather than uses a blanket term. Keep in mind that this is AP, which means it's not publishing opinion. How, exactly, would the term "illegal immigrant" be a better choice in a story than a more precise explanation of their residency status?
How is it not accurate?
They are here illegally, therefor illegal.
They are not citizens, therefore alien.
The nomenclature was used by the government.
In U.S. law, an alien is "any person not a citizen or national of the United States."[7] The U.S. Government's use of alien dates back to 1798, when it was used in the Alien and Sedition Acts.[8] U.S. law makes a clear distinction between aliens and immigrants by defining immigrants as a subset of aliens.[7] Although U.S. law provides no overarching explicit definition of the term "illegal alien," the term is used in many statutes[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] and elsewhere (e.g., court cases, executive orders). U.S. law also uses the term "unauthorized alien."[18][19][20][21][22] U.S. immigration laws do not refer to illegal immigrants, but in common parlance the term "illegal immigrant" is often used to refer to any illegal alien.[23] Because at law, a corporation is a person, the term alien is not limited to natural humans because what are colloquially called foreign corporations are technically called alien corporations. Because corporations are creations of local state law, a foreign corporation is an out of state corporation.
Seaward wrote: It's not a blanket term, though. As I said, it's an accurate descriptor. It's not calling a money launderer a generic criminal, it's calling a money launderer a money launderer. An illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant.
Can you think of a sentence in which the term "illegal immigrant" is more appropriate than a more specific descriptor?
All of them where a nonresident alien is here without following the correct legal procedure and intends to remain permanently.
I'm not getting the issue here.
I'd rather see the term "illegal alien" than "illegal immigrant," because not all aliens are immigrants.
It'd be like calling all house guests "roommates."
I'm more bothered by aliens that are here commiting crimes than those here temporarily or seasonally and wire money home. And I'm more bothered by those than people that came over illegally, but are staying and raising families here. And all of those bother me more than a person that came legally, but is staying illegally.
Polonius wrote: Actually, now that I think about it, I'm shocked that a person recommended a policy change that benefits himself or people he relates to. Because that so rarely happens.
And because it happens elsewhere we just shrug our shoulders and accept people using their positions for personal gain?
Polonius wrote: Can you think of a sentence in which the term "illegal immigrant" is more appropriate than a more specific descriptor?
I'm genuinely curious. I think the argument that the term is legitimate is a decent one, I just find the counter argument that a complex issue should use accurate language more compelling.
I'm not sure what you mean. Most journalistic endeavors that have cause to use the phrase 'illegal immigrant' are stories about illegal immigrants, either as a group or as individuals.
Again, you seem to have some odd hang-up in admitting that 'illegal immigrant' is accurate language. It's 100% accurate. It's right there on the tin, you know what you're getting. Illegal immigrant? Immigrated illegally. Armed robber? Robbed while armed.
Polonius wrote: Actually, now that I think about it, I'm shocked that a person recommended a policy change that benefits himself or people he relates to. Because that so rarely happens.
And because it happens elsewhere we just shrug our shoulders and accept people using their positions for personal gain?
I mean, we look at the bias, and we look at the benefit to the person proposing the change. and we look at the overall benefit. Does the overall benefit justify the personal benefit or not?
Now, I don't think there's a huge benefit either way with this. It's a pretty typical meta-media tempest in a tea cup. Those that see the tendrils of "liberal media" controlling thought will go that way. I think it's more likely a response to changes already in society than an attempt to change society, but I'm not in the business of selling news.
I'm not sure what you mean. Most journalistic endeavors that have cause to use the phrase 'illegal immigrant' are stories about illegal immigrants, either as a group or as individuals.
Again, you seem to have some odd hang-up in admitting that 'illegal immigrant' is accurate language. It's 100% accurate. It's right there on the tin, you know what you're getting. Illegal immigrant? Immigrated illegally. Armed robber? Robbed while armed.
I think the term has a strong connotation with a large, but specific, type of illegal alien. But after reading this thread I know better than to try to show any bias whatsoever in the American people.
Polonius wrote: I'd rather see the term "illegal alien" than "illegal immigrant," because not all aliens are immigrants.
It'd be like calling all house guests "roommates."
I'm fine with that too. Not seeing where we are disagreeing on that. Lets just use the approporiaten government term and not worry about it.
I'm more bothered by aliens that are here commiting crimes than those here temporarily or seasonally and wire money home. And I'm more bothered by those than people that came over illegally, but are staying and raising families here. And all of those bother me more than a person that came legally, but is staying illegally.
I'm bothered about
1) the utter lack of border security and control. That includes goods as well (especially little things like shipping containers)
2) the utter lack of management of visas and those that overstay them.
3) illegal aliens that commit crimes here, especially ones that are deported, return, and commit more crimes.
Polonius wrote: I mean, we look at the bias, and we look at the benefit to the person proposing the change. and we look at the overall benefit. Does the overall benefit justify the personal benefit or not?
Lets see - does someone abusing a position of power to frame the debate in a manner that suits them benefit society as a whole, or the factual reporting of the illegal immigrant issue. Nope, it doesn't. It distorts the debate to sanitise and absolve people who came here illegally so they can lobby more easily for immigration rights above and beyond what legal immigrants are entitled to.
So where is the benefit for a country in treating those who wish to enter lawfully worse than those who come here unlawfully?
Polonius wrote: Now, I don't think there's a huge benefit either way with this. It's a pretty typical meta-media tempest in a tea cup. Those that see the tendrils of "liberal media" controlling thought will go that way. I think it's more likely a response to changes already in society than an attempt to change society, but I'm not in the business of selling news.
So in the middle of a massive discussion on immigration reform you don't think that there is a substantial benefit for illegal immigrants to re-brand themselves and distance themselves from their lawbreaking so they can obtain rights more easily?
Polonius wrote: I think the term has a strong connotation with a large, but specific, type of illegal alien. But after reading this thread I know better than to try to show any bias whatsoever in the American people.
So because a guy from Latin America can be an illegal immigrant and a guy from India can be an illegal immigrant, you believe we need different terms for them? What would you prefer? Everything I've seen proposed so far to sugarcoat the term - "undocumented citizen" has to be my favorite just for the hilarity value - doesn't change at all the fact that the term's still going to be associated with the source of the bulk of illegal immigration in this country.
I have to say that my sympathies are with the Mexicans that are here trying to escape what their country has become. As far as I'm concerened, they are welcome here.
The big trick is sorting out the scumbags that are here among them.
Relapse wrote: I have to say that my sympathies are with the Mexicans that are here trying to escape what their country has become. As far as I'm concerened, they are welcome here.
The big trick is sorting out the scumbags that are here among them.
Why the assumption that everyone coming in across the Rio Grande is Mexican?
What about the millions of others who aren't from Mexico?
Relapse wrote: I have to say that my sympathies are with the Mexicans that are here trying to escape what their country has become. As far as I'm concerened, they are welcome here.
Including criminals not associated with the cartels? Rapists, murderers, child abusers, wife beaters? What about addicts? What about people with mental health issues and communicable diseases? Why should the US have to pay for their treatment/disease/incarceration?
So in the middle of a massive discussion on immigration reform you don't think that there is a substantial benefit for illegal immigrants to re-brand themselves and distance themselves from their lawbreaking so they can obtain rights more easily?
I think, yet again, you're allowing your unbridled hatred for illegal immigrants to overlook the bigger problem.
Who cares that some illegal immigrant pushed for this? I mean, of course he did. It's not hard to see why.
the real question is why did AP enact it? Now, it's possible that they are part of some overarching left wing conspiracy. It's more likely that they made the cynical business decision that they'd get more business with this change. Corporations rarely take policy stands that don't, in some way, help their bottom line. My point? I think they're mirroring a change that's there, not causing the change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Polonius wrote: I'd rather see the term "illegal alien" than "illegal immigrant," because not all aliens are immigrants.
What you seem to be missing is that they don't want to describe them as illegal at all.
I'm not missing that. I'm merely expressing a preference. I think it's a more accurate term, and one that I would support using in nearly all journalism.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Relapse wrote: I have to say that my sympathies are with the Mexicans that are here trying to escape what their country has become. As far as I'm concerened, they are welcome here.
Including criminals not associated with the cartels? Rapists, murderers, child abusers, wife beaters? What about addicts? What about people with mental health issues and communicable diseases? Why should the US have to pay for their treatment/disease/incarceration?
ah, selective quoting. the last bastion of the scoundrel.
Relapse wrote: I have to say that my sympathies are with the Mexicans that are here trying to escape what their country has become. As far as I'm concerened, they are welcome here.
The big trick is sorting out the scumbags that are here among them.
Why the assumption that everyone coming in across the Rio Grande is Mexican?
What about the millions of others who aren't from Mexico?
Statistically about 40% are Mexican. About 40% are from central America. About 20% are other including Africa and Asia (which can get scary), including Somalia, strangely enough.
Relapse wrote: I have to say that my sympathies are with the Mexicans that are here trying to escape what their country has become. As far as I'm concerened, they are welcome here.
The big trick is sorting out the scumbags that are here among them.
Why the assumption that everyone coming in across the Rio Grande is Mexican?
What about the millions of others who aren't from Mexico?
I work with people from all parts of Mexico, Central and South America. The Mexicans pretty much have it worst of all.
Relapse wrote: I have to say that my sympathies are with the Mexicans that are here trying to escape what their country has become. As far as I'm concerened, they are welcome here.
Including criminals not associated with the cartels? Rapists, murderers, child abusers, wife beaters? What about addicts? What about people with mental health issues and communicable diseases? Why should the US have to pay for their treatment/disease/incarceration?
You edited out the part where I talked of sorting out the scumbags, who do you work for, The Today Show?
Relapse wrote: I have to say that my sympathies are with the Mexicans that are here trying to escape what their country has become. As far as I'm concerened, they are welcome here.
The big trick is sorting out the scumbags that are here among them.
I'm fine with them to.....if they do it properly and fit all the requirements necessary to come here.
Polonius wrote: I think, yet again, you're allowing your unbridled hatred for illegal immigrants to overlook the bigger problem.
Who cares that some illegal immigrant pushed for this? I mean, of course he did. It's not hard to see why.
So thinking that everyone should be treated fairly and in accordance with the law is now "unbridled hatred". That's a strange definition to work off.
Polonius wrote: the real question is why did AP enact it? Now, it's possible that they are part of some overarching left wing conspiracy. It's more likely that they made the cynical business decision that they'd get more business with this change. Corporations rarely take policy stands that don't, in some way, help their bottom line. My point? I think they're mirroring a change that's there, not causing the change.
No one said anything about left wing conspiracy but you. Please don't try and ascribe arguments to people who have not made them.
You mean why did AP decide that they should toe the line as set out by a Pulitzer prize winning journalist of theirs, who benefits from this change? Who might hop ship and take his reputation and earning potential with him? That sounds like it helps their bottom line, and also helps their journalist shape the debate in a way that suits him.
Polonius wrote: I'm not missing that. I'm merely expressing a preference. I think it's a more accurate term, and one that I would support using in nearly all journalism.
So you agree that people here should be described as illegal immigrants/aliens, but you think that AP refusing to use the word "illegal" is somehow more accurate when describing people who have broken immigration law?
Polonius wrote: ah, selective quoting. the last bastion of the scoundrel.
Ah, distorted arguments and name calling. The last refuge of the desperate.
I will concede the point about rapists, murderers etc. and apologise for the mis-quote to the author, but I will stand by my comment asking about addicts, people suffering from mental health issues and communicable diseases. Unless of course you wish to describe them as "scumbags" too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: You edited out the part where I talked of sorting out the scumbags, who do you work for, The Today Show?
You are right, I mis-quoted you and I was wrong to do so. I'm sorry
Relapse wrote: I work with people from all parts of Mexico, Central and South America. The Mexicans pretty much have it worst of all.
Fantastic. You expressed the sentiment that Mexicans should be allowed in as they please, and my question was what about all the other folks, since Mexicans make up, at best, half.
Relapse wrote: I work with people from all parts of Mexico, Central and South America. The Mexicans pretty much have it worst of all.
Fantastic. You expressed the sentiment that Mexicans should be allowed in as they please, and my question was what about all the other folks, since Mexicans make up, at best, half.
I believe they should be allowed in as refugees from a warzone for sanctuary as long as that crap down there goes on. The other countries don't have near the level of troubles currently going on as in Mexico.
The reason I say let them in is because we are right there where we can help and we contributed a lot to the current situation.
Relapse wrote: I believe they should be allowed in as refugees from a warzone for sanctuary as long as that crap down there goes on. The other countries don't have near the level of troubles currently going on as in Mexico.
The reason I say let them in is because we are right there where we can help and we contributed a lot to the current situation.
Except that they don't qualify as refugees, and if we widen the definition to suit them (i.e. victims of organised crime) then it has the unintended consequence of opening the doors wide open for claims of asylum
Relapse wrote: I believe they should be allowed in as refugees from a warzone for sanctuary as long as that crap down there goes on. The other countries don't have near the level of troubles currently going on as in Mexico.
The reason I say let them in is because we are right there where we can help and we contributed a lot to the current situation.
Except that they don't qualify as refugees, and if we widen the definition to suit them (i.e. victims of organised crime) then it has the unintended consequence of opening the doors wide open for claims of asylum
This is just my opinion, but, I believe since we as a nation had such a large part in what happened down there, we should give them space here. It's more complicated than that, I know, but I think if someone sets another person's house on fire then the least they can do is offer them a room in their house.
Relapse wrote: This is just my opinion, but, I believe since we as a nation had such a large part in what happened down there, we should give them space here. It's more complicated than that, I know, but I think if someone sets another person's house on fire then the least they can do is offer them a room in their house.
A more apt analogy would be, "If someone bullies you in the second grade, you have the right to wander on into their house and stay as long as you like as an adult."
Relapse wrote: This is just my opinion, but, I believe since we as a nation had such a large part in what happened down there, we should give them space here. It's more complicated than that, I know, but I think if someone sets another person's house on fire then the least they can do is offer them a room in their house.
So because some US citizens bought drugs, and we sold some military hardware to the government the US needs to open its doors to everyone in Mexico, grant them refugee status, and that's before we consider the social impact of letting up to 112 million people (almost half the population of the US itself) who who are mainly low skilled, with minimal English, into a country with massive unemployment and a struggling economy.
That sounds like a recipe for disaster if ever I heard it.
Relapse wrote: I believe they should be allowed in as refugees from a warzone for sanctuary as long as that crap down there goes on. The other countries don't have near the level of troubles currently going on as in Mexico.
The reason I say let them in is because we are right there where we can help and we contributed a lot to the current situation.
Except that they don't qualify as refugees, and if we widen the definition to suit them (i.e. victims of organised crime) then it has the unintended consequence of opening the doors wide open for claims of asylum
This is just my opinion, but, I believe since we as a nation had such a large part in what happened down there, we should give them space here. It's more complicated than that, I know, but I think if someone sets another person's house on fire then the least they can do is offer them a room in their house.
Could you please explain how we played such a dramatic role in what is happening in Mexico?
Relapse wrote: This is just my opinion, but, I believe since we as a nation had such a large part in what happened down there, we should give them space here. It's more complicated than that, I know, but I think if someone sets another person's house on fire then the least they can do is offer them a room in their house.
A more apt analogy would be, "If someone bullies you in the second grade, you have the right to wander on into their house and stay as long as you like as an adult."
It goes beyond that, though. I don't want to get the whole debate going, but drug profits from this country have heavily funded the cartels, paving the way for this situation.
Like I say, this is just my opinion that's not going to change things one way or the other.
Relapse wrote: This is just my opinion, but, I believe since we as a nation had such a large part in what happened down there, we should give them space here. It's more complicated than that, I know, but I think if someone sets another person's house on fire then the least they can do is offer them a room in their house.
A more apt analogy would be, "If someone bullies you in the second grade, you have the right to wander on into their house and stay as long as you like as an adult."
It goes beyond that, though. I don't want to get the whole debate going, but drug profits from this country have heavily funded the cartels, paving the way for this situation.
Like I say, this is just my opinion that's not going to change things one way or the other.
You mean the illegal drugs, that are illegal in the United States, those drugs? I could see if they were legal here, but now we are responsible for a a war for a product that we are waging our own war against? I guess we should have blamed Canada for all the violence during US prohibition of alcohol.
The real inaccuracy of "Illegal Immigrant" is the word Immigrant, you can't illegally immigrate, you can invade, but until you do it legally you are not an immigrant you are an alien!
Relapse wrote: It goes beyond that, though. I don't want to get the whole debate going, but drug profits from this country have heavily funded the cartels, paving the way for this situation.
Like I say, this is just my opinion that's not going to change things one way or the other.
So because some individuals broke the law to buy illegal drugs smuggled into the US, and those funds were used by criminals to conduct criminal activity then the US has to open its borders because the Mexican authorities cannot maintain law and order?
We could use different terms for different situations. For those on expired visas and such we could use unauthorized or unsanctioned or undocumented alien, but for those that just cross the border or use illegal documents then Illegal alien is really more fitting.
Relapse wrote: This is just my opinion, but, I believe since we as a nation had such a large part in what happened down there, we should give them space here. It's more complicated than that, I know, but I think if someone sets another person's house on fire then the least they can do is offer them a room in their house.
A more apt analogy would be, "If someone bullies you in the second grade, you have the right to wander on into their house and stay as long as you like as an adult."
It goes beyond that, though. I don't want to get the whole debate going, but drug profits from this country have heavily funded the cartels, paving the way for this situation.
Like I say, this is just my opinion that's not going to change things one way or the other.
You mean the illegal drugs, that are illegal in the United States, those drugs? I could see if they were legal here, but now we are responsible for a a war for a product that we are waging our own war against? I guess we should have blamed Canada for all the violence during US prohibition of alcohol.
The real inaccuracy of "Illegal Immigrant" is the word Immigrant, you can't illegally immigrate, you can invade, but until you do it legally you are not an immigrant you are an alien!
I blame anyone buying the drugs, knowing where the money goes and what it's funding.
Relapse wrote: It goes beyond that, though. I don't want to get the whole debate going, but drug profits from this country have heavily funded the cartels, paving the way for this situation.
Like I say, this is just my opinion that's not going to change things one way or the other.
So because some individuals broke the law to buy illegal drugs smuggled into the US, and those funds were used by criminals to conduct criminal activity then the US has to open its borders because the Mexican authorities cannot maintain law and order?
I base my opinions from living in a neighborhood largly populated by Mexicans and working with a lot of others. I get a good chance to hear their stories of family members being terrorized, or cartel thugs just walking in and taking what they want , goods, property, businesses, etc., with no one to stop them.
They rightly place a lot of blame on the drug users in this country funding the cartels.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Like I say, it's just my opinion and it's not going to change the situation one way or the other.
Relapse wrote: I blame anyone buying the drugs, knowing where the money goes and what it's funding.
So because drug users did not buy ethically sourced, sustainable illegal drugs then the United States should take in up to 112 million people? Just out of curiosity do drug dealers have some sort of certificate to show that the stuff they sell is ethically sourced, is there some group that examines their operation?
Relapse wrote: I base my opinions from living in a neighborhood largly populated by Mexicans and working with a lot of others. I get a good chance to hear their stories of family members being terrorized, or cartel thugs just walking in and taking what they want , goods, property, businesses, etc., with no one to stop them.
They rightly place a lot of blame on the drug users in this country funding the cartels.
I'm not saying that the drug users are at fault or not. I'm saying that your logic is way off, you want the entire population of the US to suffer because of the actions of private citizens who buy drugs knowingly, or unknowingly, from the cartels.
You are arguing that the drug users buy the drugs, they have no say over what the cartel buys with their money, the cartel buys guns, the cartel kills people, the Mexican government can't keep order and so the entire United States has to pay for the actions of drug users?
Relapse wrote: I blame anyone buying the drugs, knowing where the money goes and what it's funding.
So because drug users did not buy ethically sourced, sustainable illegal drugs then the United States should take in up to 112 million people? Just out of curiosity do drug dealers have some sort of certificate to show that the stuff they sell is ethically sourced, is there some group that examines their operation?
Relapse wrote: I base my opinions from living in a neighborhood largly populated by Mexicans and working with a lot of others. I get a good chance to hear their stories of family members being terrorized, or cartel thugs just walking in and taking what they want , goods, property, businesses, etc., with no one to stop them.
They rightly place a lot of blame on the drug users in this country funding the cartels.
I'm not saying that the drug users are at fault or not. I'm saying that your logic is way off, you want the entire population of the US to suffer because of the actions of private citizens who buy drugs knowingly, or unknowingly, from the cartels.
You are arguing that the drug users buy the drugs, they have no say over what the cartel buys with their money, the cartel buys guns, the cartel kills people, the Mexican government can't keep order and so the entire United States has to pay for the actions of drug users?
Like I say, just my opinion that is not going to change things one way or the other, so no real need to get overly upset about it.
Dakkanaut wrote:So, the argument is basically, "since this change may in some way help the Democratic party, it is inherently bad."
You are literally arguing that providing more detail, while avoiding a blanket term, is "distorting the facts." That's actually being more specific, which is usually a case of increasing the amount of facts.
I have no problem with the term, but i'm neither an immigration expert nor a journalist. I do write for a living, and I know that there are lot of times where I avoid using commonly understood terms or phrases, and instead use a more specific, accurate, and appropriate term. It's called good writing.
No, the argument is that by trying to call immigrants who are in a county illegally something other than what they are is distorting the facts and shaping the debate. Especially when the change in phraseology has been proposed by a Pulitzer prize winning illegal immigrant who deliberately confuses illegal (against the law) and criminal (against criminal law) to make his point.
Dakkanaut wrote:
Dakkanaut wrote:Except for the fact that it's not accurate. Not always. Which I think is the point.
Imagine if every crime story involving a repeat felon simply referred to them as "ex-con." It's true, and legitimate, but wouldn't you, as a reader, want to know if they were a murderer or a money launderer?
I'd rather read copy that explains the nature of their illegal residency, rather than uses a blanket term. Keep in mind that this is AP, which means it's not publishing opinion. How, exactly, would the term "illegal immigrant" be a better choice in a story than a more precise explanation of their residency status?
It's not a blanket term, though. As I said, it's an accurate descriptor. It's not calling a money launderer a generic criminal, it's calling a money launderer a money launderer. An illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant.
Dakkanaut wrote:
Dakkanaut wrote:
Dakkanaut wrote:No, the argument is that there's no reason to stop using a perfectly legitimate and accurate descriptor because some people feel that it has a pejorative connotation. Which, even if it does, there's absolutely no reason not to refer to illegal conduct in a pejorative sense.
Except for the fact that it's not accurate. Not always. Which I think is the point.
Imagine if every crime story involving a repeat felon simply referred to them as "ex-con." It's true, and legitimate, but wouldn't you, as a reader, want to know if they were a murderer or a money launderer?
I'd rather read copy that explains the nature of their illegal residency, rather than uses a blanket term. Keep in mind that this is AP, which means it's not publishing opinion. How, exactly, would the term "illegal immigrant" be a better choice in a story than a more precise explanation of their residency status?
How is it not accurate?
They are here illegally, therefor illegal.
They are not citizens, therefore alien.
The nomenclature was used by the government.
In U.S. law, an alien is "any person not a citizen or national of the United States."[7] The U.S. Government's use of alien dates back to 1798, when it was used in the Alien and Sedition Acts.[8] U.S. law makes a clear distinction between aliens and immigrants by defining immigrants as a subset of aliens.[7] Although U.S. law provides no overarching explicit definition of the term "illegal alien," the term is used in many statutes[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] and elsewhere (e.g., court cases, executive orders). U.S. law also uses the term "unauthorized alien."[18][19][20][21][22] U.S. immigration laws do not refer to illegal immigrants, but in common parlance the term "illegal immigrant" is often used to refer to any illegal alien.[23] Because at law, a corporation is a person, the term alien is not limited to natural humans because what are colloquially called foreign corporations are technically called alien corporations. Because corporations are creations of local state law, a foreign corporation is an out of state corporation.
The power of Wiki compels us!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dakkanaut wrote:
Dakkanaut wrote:It's not a blanket term, though. As I said, it's an accurate descriptor. It's not calling a money launderer a generic criminal, it's calling a money launderer a money launderer. An illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant.
Can you think of a sentence in which the term "illegal immigrant" is more appropriate than a more specific descriptor?
All of them where a nonresident alien is here without following the correct legal procedure and intends to remain permanently.
I'm not getting the issue here.
Yeah, I can't see any benefit of using a more specific term instead of more specific terms to describe somebody.
So in the middle of a massive discussion on immigration reform you don't think that there is a substantial benefit for illegal immigrants to re-brand themselves and distance themselves from their lawbreaking so they can obtain rights more easily?
Of course, there also exists a significant incentive for American employers (and their supporters) to continue to pin the illegal behavior associated with illegal immigration on the immigrants themselves.
You mean why did AP decide that they should toe the line as set out by a Pulitzer prize winning journalist of theirs, who benefits from this change? Who might hop ship and take his reputation and earning potential with him? That sounds like it helps their bottom line, and also helps their journalist shape the debate in a way that suits him.
Vargas isn't an AP journalist. His Pulitzer was awarded as a result of his work with the Washington Post, which is a partial owner (one of 1,400) of the AP. And, honestly, given the list of agencies with partial ownership of the AP he doesn't exactly have anywhere to go if he wants to divorce himself from that organization.
If you're going to rant, you might first do a bit of research about what the AP actually is.
So in the middle of a massive discussion on immigration reform you don't think that there is a substantial benefit for illegal immigrants to re-brand themselves and distance themselves from their lawbreaking so they can obtain rights more easily?
Of course, there also exists a significant incentive for American employers (and their supporters) to continue to pin the illegal behavior associated with illegal immigration on the immigrants themselves.
I tried that argument for a couple of pages. What I got was the response that of course people should be mad at employers, but he doesn't see anything odd or suspicious about the fact that nobody is.
dogma wrote: Of course, there also exists a significant incentive for American employers (and their supporters) to continue to pin the illegal behavior associated with illegal immigration on the immigrants themselves.
You mean people are outraged at the people who crossed the border illegally? Are the illegal immigrants responsible for their own behaviour or not?
For the record can I re-state my position that I firmly support heavy penalties for those hiring illegal immigrants (fines and/or jail).
dogma wrote: Vargas isn't an AP journalist. His Pulitzer was awarded as a result of his work with the Washington Post, which is a partial owner (one of 1,400) of the AP. And, honestly, given the list of agencies with partial ownership of the AP he doesn't exactly have anywhere to go if he wants to divorce himself from that organization.
If you're going to rant, you might first do a bit of research about what the AP actually is.
So you're objecting to my description of him as an AP journalist, but what you're saying is that he is not an AP journalist, but just an award winning journalist from one of the agencies which owns the AP.
You might want to read the article itself - as I said, he is the one who proposed it.
For immigration reform advocates, of course, this is a clear win. Jose Antonio Vargas, a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist who entered the country when he was 12-years-old and does not have legal permission to live in the United States, had pushed the news organization to change its definition back in September.
Polonius wrote: I tried that argument for a couple of pages. What I got was the response that of course people should be mad at employers, but he doesn't see anything odd or suspicious about the fact that nobody is.
And I repeatedly stated, as above, that people hiring illegal immigrants should be punished. I have been very consistent in asking that people be equal before the law and those who break the law be punished. Please don't try to score cheap points by willful misrepresentation of my argument.
You brought race into the discussion we had, you claimed that everyone saying that illegal immigrants should not be in the US was bigoted because you personally had not heard anyone speak out against those hiring them (conveniently ignoring what I said) and that anti-immigrant violence was on the rise with no evidence to support that statement. What you managed to show was that there was an increase in violence against Latinos (with no evidence for this rise), and an essay by the SPLC that cast anyone raising concerns about immigration as a nativist who had bought into conspiracy theories about the US being subverted to a Latino state.
So you're objecting to my description of him as an AP journalist...
I am, the AP directly employs many journalists, reporters, and researchers; but Vargas has never been one of them. They don't even list his Pulitzer articles (or articles he has contributed to) as any earned by their own.
You might want to read the article itself - as I said, he is the one who proposed it.
And?
The AP adopted this proposal either because they believed their readers would prefer it, or it eliminated a loaded phrase; the latter being a major component of reporting.
dogma wrote: The AP adopted this proposal either because they believed their readers would prefer it, or it eliminated a loaded phrase; the latter being a major component of reporting.
You're awfully confident in stating things as fact for a guy who wasn't in on any of the discussion, as far as I'm aware.
dogma wrote: The AP adopted this proposal either because they believed their readers would prefer it, or it eliminated a loaded phrase; the latter being a major component of reporting.
You're awfully confident in stating things as fact for a guy who wasn't in on any of the discussion, as far as I'm aware.
And you are awfully confident in stating that this was done for political purposes for a guy who wasn't in on any of the discussion, as far as I'm aware.
A lot of "look, look! They are trying to be less specific by being more specific!" going on in this thread.
d-usa wrote: And you are awfully confident in stating that this was done for political purposes for a guy who wasn't in on any of the discussion, as far as I'm aware.
A lot of "look, look! They are trying to be less specific by being more specific!" going on in this thread.
Man, is that really what you guys are talking yourselves into believing?
d-usa wrote: And you are awfully confident in stating that this was done for political purposes for a guy who wasn't in on any of the discussion, as far as I'm aware.
A lot of "look, look! They are trying to be less specific by being more specific!" going on in this thread.
Man, is that really what you guys are talking yourselves into believing?
Just a simple question then:
What is more specific and accurate?
1) Illegal Immigrant 2) Immigrant on an expired work visa.
d-usa wrote: So "rapist" is more accurate than "child rapist", and "felon" is more accurate than "murderer"?
No, as neither of those are analogous to what you actually proposed.
Why do you think a broader term is more accurate than a more specific term?
Probably because it's not accurate within the confines of the immigration debate. You're not an immigrant once your visa goes. You're here illegally at that point.
Out of curiosity, would you say, "immigrant with an unexpired work visa" when talking about someone in someone who was in the country legally with an unexpired work visa? If not, why not?
d-usa wrote: So "rapist" is more accurate than "child rapist", and "felon" is more accurate than "murderer"?
No, as neither of those are analogous to what you actually proposed.
But it is. You say that the broad category of an offense is more accurate than the specific offense, so why is it only applicable to certain categories?
Why do you think a broader term is more accurate than a more specific term?
Probably because it's not accurate within the confines of the immigration debate. You're not an immigrant once your visa goes. You're here illegally at that point.
Out of curiosity, would you say, "immigrant with an unexpired work visa" when talking about someone in someone who was in the country legally with an unexpired work visa? If not, why not?
Would you say "person who has not raped anybody yet" when talking about somebody who has never committed the crime of rape? If not, why not?
d-usa wrote: But it is. You say that the broad category of an offense is more accurate than the specific offense, so why is it only applicable to certain categories?
But it isn't. I did not, in fact, say the broad category of an offense is more accurate than the specific offense, I said the broad, accurate label is more accurate than the specific, inaccurate one. Since you seem to really want to break it down in terms of rape, an entirely non-analogous bit of illegal behavior, I'm not really sure where we're going to go from here.
Would you say "person who has not raped anybody yet" when talking about somebody who has never committed the crime of rape? If not, why not?
Because it's an irrelevant level of specificity for which a term encompassing a much broader range of individuals functions better.
So are you also angry when news companies refer to people as "refugees, migrant workers, legal residents, 'here on student visa'", etc instead of "legal immigrant"?
d-usa wrote: So are you also angry when news companies refer to people as "refugees, migrant workers, legal residents, 'here on student visa'", etc instead of "legal immigrant"?
No, because I've never seen that done. A story that deals with a broad class of legal immigrants does not mention every single type of legal immigrant every time it refers to the concept of legal immigration, and when it needs to put forth specific examples, it uses specific details. Which, of course, is exactly the same as it is with a story about illegal immigration.
Whereas a story specifically about migrant workers will refer specifically to migrant workers, and the same is true of a story about a specific subset of illegal immigrants.
dogma wrote: The AP adopted this proposal either because they believed their readers would prefer it, or it eliminated a loaded phrase; the latter being a major component of reporting.
You're awfully confident in stating things as fact for a guy who wasn't in on any of the discussion, as far as I'm aware.
Fair enough, I should have said "The AP probably..."
But lets be realistic here, the worst case scenario is that the AP is deliberately attempting to manipulate political discourse...which is what the AP necessarily does by way of being a major news organization. The AP can attempt to be politically neutral, and generally it does, but even that fundamentally alters the political landscape. Which is why I find it so baffling that people get bent out of shape over things like this.
But whatever, its the United States, everyone has be in strident opposition to something.
You couldn't care less, is what I believe you meant to say there. By the by that nonsensical phrase is far more grating than any configuration of how people describe immigrants.
dogma wrote: Has anyone claimed that they are not?
Phrases like "pin the blame" indicate that a person or group is not at fault, but being blamed for the actions of someone else
dogma wrote: You can, but you've already let emotion bleed all over your sleeve, so it won't seem genuine.
So having a strong opinion on a topic is letting "emotion bleed all over your sleeve" and therefore any opinion on the matter can be discounted, especially the arguments advanced that don't suit you. That sounds perfectly reasonable
So my having a strong opinion on a topic eliminates any genuine intent on my part (per your argument), but an illegal immigrant looking to change the language in the immigration debate, at a time when an amnesty for illegal immigrants is being strongly considered, to remove the stigma of their law breaking and to potentially omit factual details to garner public sympathy for illegal immigrants and you just say "And?"
dogma wrote: The AP adopted this proposal either because they believed their readers would prefer it, or it eliminated a loaded phrase; the latter being a major component of reporting.
No, that's not why the adopted it. Read the article. Then understand that they willfully conflated illegal acts with criminal acts to make their point, thus showing their dishonest intentions.
dogma wrote: But whatever, its the United States, everyone has be in strident opposition to something.
So there can't be a genuine reason for being opposed to something? We all just have to be opposed to something because of the country we reside in (not necessarily born in), and if you have an strong opinion on something you won't seem genuine anyway
1) Illegal Immigrant
2) Immigrant on an expired work visa.
It depends. Did that person enter illegally after paying coyotes to smuggle them in? Did that person outstay their tourist visa? Did that person outstay their student visa? Did that person enter under a K1 visa and not get married within the proscribed time? Did that person enter under the Visa Waiver program and outstay the 90 days?
All those are more accurately described as illegal immigrants if those are the two options being given. Even the expired work visa is still an illegal immigrant as they are an immigrant who has not followed immigration law.
So having a strong opinion on a topic is letting "emotion bleed all over your sleeve" and therefore any opinion on the matter can be discounted, especially the arguments advanced that don't suit you. That sounds perfectly reasonable
Yes, having a strong opinion on a topic is "letting emotion bleed all over your sleeve".
Where the remaining components of your argument came from is anyone's guess, but they certainly weren't implied by my initial statement regarding your sentiment pertaining to employers viz. illegal immigration.
So my having a strong opinion on a topic eliminates any genuine intent on my part (per your argument)...
No, per your argument. The one you made by clumsily citing a comment of mine out of context. I believe its called "Breitbarting". Though "O'keefing" or "Olbermanning" would work just as well.
While I enjoy a good bit of sophist banter, you honestly suck at it; so I'm bowing out.
dogma wrote: No, they don't. One can be at fault, and still find themselves burdened by the fault of others. I believe the term is "scapegoat".
Both are viable, as is "whipping boy".
In this instance the fault lies with the people who broke the law - the immigrant and the person hiring them. There is no need to pin, or otherwise assign, the blame on them, as both are culpable
dogma wrote: Yes, having a strong opinion on a topic is "letting emotion bleed all over your sleeve".
Where the remaining components of your argument came from is anyone's guess, but they certainly weren't implied by my initial statement regarding your sentiment pertaining to employers viz. illegal immigration.
When you set out to play the player and not the ball, it generally gives the impression that you can't/won't counter the argument advanced. Especially when no effort is made to actually counter the argument. When you say that an alleged emotion based response (ignoring all the other perfectly reasonable responses to date) renders a person's argument void that's just a tactic to shut someone out of the debate. So yes, they were heavily implied by your statement.
dogma wrote: No, per your argument. The one you made by clumsily citing a comment of mine out of context. I believe its called "Breitbarting". Though "O'keefing" or "Olbermanning" would work just as well.
While I enjoy a good bit of sophist banter, you honestly suck at it; so I'm bowing out.
I quoted your exact words and you have had ample opportunity to provide context, which you have chosen not to do. You then ignored the rest of what I said. The rest is a vain attempt to scramble for the moral high ground, get in a cheap dig and think that you can leave the thread with your dignity intact.
You couldn't care less, is what I believe you meant to say there. By the by that nonsensical phrase is far more grating than any configuration of how people describe immigrants.
He probably couldn't care less about what people think about him/her when he/she says "I could care less".
