Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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)

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.

 reds8n wrote:
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.

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.

Dreadclaw wrote:]I wasn't making the claim that breaking immigration law was a criminal matter, so apologies if that was not clear.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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're right and wrong at the same time.

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)

 reds8n wrote:
Not it isn't.. It's unlawful.

"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 )

Another problem with focusing on illegal immigrants is that it doesn't take into account non-residents working illegally but not planning on settling.

it's a poorly chosen term, but I'll agree that it at least has reasonably clear meaning in the vernacular.

 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?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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

 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.

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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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?

 Alfndrate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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...

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

I'm leary of creating new euphemism here...

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.

What exactly is wrong with the term "illegal immigrant"?

 whembly wrote:


Just call them for what they truly are... jeeze...

Which is exactly what the AP's guidelines are intended to do.

However, I have a feeling you aren't a fan of the new guidelines.

Its not PC.