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.

 Frazzled wrote:
Its not PC.

And why?

They are immigrants and they break the law...thus I fail to see why it's not pc...

 Sigvatr wrote:
And why?

They are immigrants and they break the law...thus I fail to see why it's not pc...

Because the truth hurts evidently

 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.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

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?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So you still don't have evidence, just a terrible comparative peace and your own opinion. Moving along....

45 seconds of google searching found this:

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/hate-crime/immigrants-hispanics.htm#stateselection

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.

So, being mad over the term "Illegal Immigrant" is more of a cultural thing?

I, personally, being a European, fail to realize it being offensive thus it might be offensive for Americans / American culture.

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.

 Polonius wrote:
45 seconds of google searching found this:

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/hate-crime/immigrants-hispanics.htm#stateselection

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.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

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 that's just to get into the country

 Polonius wrote:


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 :/

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Polonius wrote:


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!"

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Correlation does not imply causation, so you're out of luck unless you have something more concrete.

Ok, so we have a rise in anti-latino hate crimes, massive outrage about illegal immigration, but there's absolutely no connection.

Here's an essay on it:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/anti-immigrant/the-anti-immigrant-movement

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?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Polonius wrote:


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.

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...

 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.

 reds8n wrote:

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...

This is hilariously, hilariously wrong.

http://ideas.time.com/2012/09/21/immigration-debate-the-problem-with-the-word-illegal/

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.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/05/opinion/garcia-illegal-immigrants

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.

 Polonius wrote:
Ok, so we have a rise in anti-latino hate crimes, massive outrage about illegal immigration, but there's absolutely no connection.

Here's an essay on it:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/anti-immigrant/the-anti-immigrant-movement

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:
http://ideas.time.com/2012/09/21/immigration-debate-the-problem-with-the-word-illegal/

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.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/05/opinion/garcia-illegal-immigrants

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.

We should also note, "illegal alien" was the actual government term. This may have changed.

 Frazzled wrote:
We should also note, "illegal alien" was the actual government term. This may have changed.

Yeah, to "Potential Voter"

 reds8n wrote:
http://ideas.time.com/2012/09/21/immigration-debate-the-problem-with-the-word-illegal/

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.

But we already do this

 reds8n wrote:
A bunch of stuff that says nothing at all about 'unlawful citizen' terminology.

I think you may have missed the point.