View Single Post
Old 06-13-2019, 07:04 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,362
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
I think your grasping at straws there. I would be VERY surprised if any English dictionary published in North America in the past 20 years would NOT mention the use of "illegal" as a noun/person to be derogatory.
Iím not asking whether it would surprise you; Iím asking whether it would show that BigT was wrong. (But, for clarity: would online sources suffice?)

There is a definite legal definition of "trespassing" as well as legal penalties for same. You can be legally convicted of trespassing. Otherwise - well, maybe you are and maybe you aren't.
But what Iím asking is: do people make routine and unremarkable use of the term ďtrespassersĒ even when describing folks who havenít been legally convicted of it?

The "documents" referred to here are those permitting one to legally enter a country and you damn well know it. It's not about "documenting a person's presence" in the US.

A person can legally enter the US for a variety of reasons using a variety of documents to do so - passports, visas, enhanced driver's license, "green card", etc. So a person might be allowed to enter on vacation, or allowed to live here but not work here, or allowed to live AND work here, might be here as a legal refugee, might be here without permission or document permitting entry... You can't tell by looking at someone what their legal status is or isn't. The vast majority of people are NOT the border police and have no business trying to determine if someone is or isn't in the US legally.
How does that not cut both ways? You say that I canít tell by looking at someone what their legal status is or isnít; wouldnít I likewise have trouble trying to tell by looking at someone what the story is when it comes to documents?