Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:31 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,101

When humanitarian behavior is criminalized...


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...rants-n1016646

Quote:
Defense attorneys argued that Scott Daniel Warren, a 36-year-old college geography instructor, was simply being kind by providing two migrants with water, food and lodging when he was arrested in early 2018. He faced up to 20 years in prison.

But prosecutors maintained the men were not in distress and Warren conspired to transport and harbor them at a property used for providing aid to migrants in an Arizona town near the U.S.-Mexico border.
Feds may try to prosecute him again.

It gets better.

Quote:
In West Texas, a county attorney was detained earlier this year after stopping her car on a dark highway to pick up three young migrants who flagged her down. Teresa Todd was held briefly, and federal agents searched her cellphone.
People who think that comparisons of this administration and its adherents to Nazi Germany are hyperbole are dangerously naive.
  #2  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:03 AM
yojimbo's Avatar
yojimbo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 9,444
Europe is having the same kinda issues.

This is an activist but she is looking at a lot of time for pulling people out of the water.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...-prison-saving
  #3  
Old 06-12-2019, 09:20 AM
wguy123 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by yojimbo View Post
Europe is having the same kinda issues.

This is an activist but she is looking at a lot of time for pulling people out of the water.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...-prison-saving
I listen to the NY Time's "The Daily" podcast and this week they are going to different EU countries to talk about the surge of the far-right in politics. Today's episode is in Italy and at the end, they talk about how a girl gave a thumbs up to the news that a migrant boat sank and over a hundred died. We are at a sad state of affairs when people are happy to hear of large groups of humans dying.
  #4  
Old 06-12-2019, 08:15 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
People who think that comparisons of this administration and its adherents to Nazi Germany are hyperbole are dangerously naive.
Were the laws that these people are accused of breaking passed during this administration?
  #5  
Old 06-12-2019, 09:09 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,593
.............only criminals will be humanitarians?
  #6  
Old 06-12-2019, 01:40 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
.............only criminals will be humanitarians?

Damn you ! That was MY line !
__________________
--- ---
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but that's never stopped me before.
  #7  
Old 06-12-2019, 02:08 PM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 7,184
Every time someone talks about voting Christian values, I point to stuff like this. Jesus was very clear about how to treat those in need, especially travellers.

Laws that forbid moral behavior should never be enforced.
  #8  
Old 06-12-2019, 02:26 PM
Typo Negative's Avatar
Typo Negative is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 17,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
Every time someone talks about voting Christian values, I point to stuff like this. Jesus was very clear about how to treat those in need, especially travellers.

Laws that forbid moral behavior should never be enforced.
We are not really talking about the moral behavior. Lets be clear on that.

If the man had given the immigrants food and water...AND called ICE...then he would be on the right side of the law.

The behavior that is forbidden is being part of a network that helps immigrants skirt immigration law.
__________________
"God hates Facts"

- seen on a bumper sticker in Sacramento Ca
  #9  
Old 06-15-2019, 01:03 PM
Woofdogs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Texas
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
Every time someone talks about voting Christian values, I point to stuff like this. Jesus was very clear about how to treat those in need, especially travelers.

Laws that forbid moral behavior should never be enforced.
I absolutely agree with you and I have often advanced this very argument. The answer I always get is "Yes, BUT...."

Anyone can call themselves a Christian, but if you don't follow Christ's precepts to the very best of your ability then you are NOT a Christian, say what you will.
  #10  
Old 06-12-2019, 11:15 AM
El_Kabong's Avatar
El_Kabong is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Smack Dab in the Middle
Posts: 15,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Were the laws that these people are accused of breaking passed during this administration?
Don't know. Let's say they were enacted previously. Were they prosecuted as zealously by previous administrations?
  #11  
Old 06-12-2019, 11:28 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Kabong View Post
Don't know. Let's say they were enacted previously. Were they prosecuted as zealously by previous administrations?
Not sure. I would hope that a person who thinks they ARE being prosecuted by this administration more zealously than previous administrations would have that information on hand.
  #12  
Old 06-12-2019, 09:16 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,107
There should be opportunity for a grand compromise. Migrants are granted admittance once they have secured private funding and they and their descendants are prevented from securing transfer payments.
  #13  
Old 06-12-2019, 10:06 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
and they and their descendants are prevented from securing transfer payments.
What does this mean?
  #14  
Old 06-12-2019, 10:13 AM
Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
What does this mean?
And what does it have to do with the case at hand?
  #15  
Old 06-12-2019, 10:16 AM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 11,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
What does this mean?
This means "punish immigrant's children for having the moral failing of being born to an immigrant."
  #16  
Old 06-12-2019, 08:03 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
This means "punish immigrant's children for having the moral failing of being born to an immigrant."
I don't think it's fair to judge all of the children of immigrants by the moral failings of Donald Trump.
  #17  
Old 06-12-2019, 02:20 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
There should be opportunity for a grand compromise. Migrants are granted admittance once they have secured private funding and they and their descendants are prevented from securing transfer payments.
Why are their descendants to be second-class citizens based on what their forebears did or didn't do? Do you advocate any other categories of people being punished for the wrong doings of a separate group of people?

Do you not see that this is morally wrong?
  #18  
Old 06-12-2019, 04:36 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Why are their descendants to be second-class citizens based on what their forebears did or didn't do? Do you advocate any other categories of people being punished for the wrong doings of a separate group of people?

Do you not see that this is morally wrong?
Punishment? Anyone deprived of transfer payments is being punished?
  #19  
Old 06-12-2019, 04:53 PM
Saintly Loser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Punishment? Anyone deprived of transfer payments is being punished?
If someone, by virtue of the circumstances of their parents' (or grandparents', etc) arrival in this country, is deprived of a right that you possess, yes, that's being punished.

And, by the way, are you not a descendant of migrants? I know I am.
  #20  
Old 06-12-2019, 05:30 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Punishment? Anyone deprived of transfer payments is being punished?
If the only reason a person otherwise qualified to receive payments is not receiving payments is because of something his/her parent(s) or grandparent(s) did yes, that is being punished. It is unjust.
  #21  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:42 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Punishment? Anyone deprived of transfer payments is being punished?
Can you explain what you mean by "transfer payments"?
  #22  
Old 06-12-2019, 12:32 PM
Typo Negative's Avatar
Typo Negative is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 17,584
I guess the OP did not consider that Scott Daniel Warren may be lying and was trying to harbor them.

I ain't saying either way, but this:
Quote:
The undocumented men said they researched the best methods for crossing the border and had received the address of “the Barn” as a place they could receive food and water, according to the complaint.

“After finding their way to ‘the Barn,’ Warren met them outside and gave them food and water for approximately three days,” according to the complaint.
seems to counter the defense argument somewhat.

I dunno. Maybe the Feds are lying. Wouldn't be the first time. But it does seem a little odd that the man just happened to show up at a place where illegals went for assistance and just happened to have 3 days worth of food and water for 2 men with him.
__________________
"God hates Facts"

- seen on a bumper sticker in Sacramento Ca
  #23  
Old 06-12-2019, 02:23 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Typo Negative View Post
I dunno. Maybe the Feds are lying. Wouldn't be the first time. But it does seem a little odd that the man just happened to show up at a place where illegals went for assistance and just happened to have 3 days worth of food and water for 2 men with him.
Wow.

I mean, I have effectively unlimited water from my tap at home, not to mention a variety of other beverages, and usually have enough food on hand to feed surprise guests for a day or two. Do I deserve to be prosecuted, too? Are we going to limit how much food people keep in their homes now?
  #24  
Old 06-12-2019, 02:29 PM
Typo Negative's Avatar
Typo Negative is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 17,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Wow.

I mean, I have effectively unlimited water from my tap at home, not to mention a variety of other beverages, and usually have enough food on hand to feed surprise guests for a day or two. Do I deserve to be prosecuted, too? Are we going to limit how much food people keep in their homes now?
Strawman.

If I read the article correctly, they didn't come to his home. He took the supplies to them. And where he took the supplies was a known hub where illegals went for supplies.
__________________
"God hates Facts"

- seen on a bumper sticker in Sacramento Ca
  #25  
Old 06-12-2019, 05:36 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Typo Negative View Post
Strawman.

If I read the article correctly, they didn't come to his home. He took the supplies to them. And where he took the supplies was a known hub where illegals went for supplies.

Please keep in mind that people who aspire to human decency do not use "illegal" as a noun.

Also that people who bear the proud title of Doper are held to a higher standard than most.
  #26  
Old 06-12-2019, 05:44 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Please keep in mind that people who aspire to human decency do not use "illegal" as a noun.
Please keep in mind that you’re wrong.
  #27  
Old 06-12-2019, 04:39 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Typo Negative View Post
I guess the OP did not consider that Scott Daniel Warren may be lying and was trying to harbor them.

I ain't saying either way, but this:
seems to counter the defense argument somewhat.

I dunno. Maybe the Feds are lying. Wouldn't be the first time. But it does seem a little odd that the man just happened to show up at a place where illegals went for assistance and just happened to have 3 days worth of food and water for 2 men with him.
The feds are technically within the boundaries of the law, but it's a ridiculous application of the law, and it's not really in the same spirit of simply protecting borders or controlling immigration. Prosecuting people like Warren is in the spirit of authoritarianism and racism.
  #28  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:48 PM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Typo Negative View Post
We are not really talking about the moral behavior. Lets be clear on that.



If the man had given the immigrants food and water...AND called ICE...then he would be on the right side of the law.



The behavior that is forbidden is being part of a network that helps immigrants skirt immigration law.
Pretty darn heavy penalties for assisting in a misdemeanor.
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
  #29  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:34 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,426
Sorry man, but I don't see where he ranted about how horrible "illegals" are. Can you point it out?
  #30  
Old 06-12-2019, 11:40 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,698
Fuck you, The Other Waldo Pepper. There’s a reason why I have you on ignore (and thus never read your “retort” until now).It’s tied up with that higher standard that Dopers are held to.

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 06-12-2019 at 11:43 PM.
  #31  
Old 06-12-2019, 11:45 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Fuck you, The Other Waldo Pepper. There’s a reason why I have you on ignore. It’s tied up with that higher standard that Dopers are held to.
Uh, okay. I sure do hope someone manages to relay to you that your flatly-stated claim remains factually incorrect; if you really do have some kind of fondness for high standards, maybe ‘accuracy’ can find its way into your posts.
  #32  
Old 06-13-2019, 09:14 AM
Mr Shine's Avatar
Mr Shine is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Fuck you, The Other Waldo Pepper. There’s a reason why I have you on ignore (and thus never read your “retort” until now).It’s tied up with that higher standard that Dopers are held to.
If dopers were held to a higher standard, you for one would not be here. You are an annoying turd and your drive-by "witticisms" and pontifications are appreciated by nobody.
  #33  
Old 06-13-2019, 12:56 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Shine View Post
If dopers were held to a higher standard, you for one would not be here. You are an annoying turd and your drive-by "witticisms" and pontifications are appreciated by nobody.
o_o

>_<

o_0

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 06-13-2019 at 12:56 PM.
  #34  
Old 06-13-2019, 11:51 PM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 22,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Fuck you, The Other Waldo Pepper. There’s a reason why I have you on ignore

Good call. I have joined your club. I shan't be seeing TOWP's nonsense any longer.

Last edited by Monty; 06-13-2019 at 11:52 PM.
  #35  
Old 06-13-2019, 06:12 AM
Filbert is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,502
This is some quality sov cit level arguing right there. The hypothetical existence of a dictionary that doesn't call a dehumanising slur a slur would be in no way relevant to the facts that a) it is one, and b) you were using it as one.

Everyone else isn't using a gold-fringed dictionary magically making this drivel have a point; if you think it's fine to use a slur to describe people, own it.
  #36  
Old 06-13-2019, 06:26 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Filbert View Post
This is some quality sov cit level arguing right there. The hypothetical existence of a dictionary that doesn't call a dehumanising slur a slur
Hypothetical? Broomstick, who doesn’t seem to be at all on my side here, didn’t merely grant that there might be some dictionaries out there that don't make that notation, but immediately went on to mention one that doesn’t.

Quote:
if you think it's fine to use a slur to describe people, own it.
Is it a slur to describe people as “felons” instead of phrasing it in some other way? Is it a slur to accurately describe people as “trespassers” or “perjurers” — or as “arsonists” or “burglars” or whatever, on through the alphabet — instead of wording it some other way? In a sense, you could say it is; and yet, yes, all of that strikes me as fine. So fine, in fact, that I’m not sure that’s what it means to use a slur.

Would you say ‘illegals’ is a slur the way ‘felons’ and ‘trespassers’ and ‘perjurers’ and the rest are? Or are you saying it’s a slur in a way they’re not?
  #37  
Old 06-13-2019, 07:15 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,101
You're just splitting hairs, Waldo. A word becomes a slur when it is used to describe a group of people, and when people take umbrage to the slur. That's really all it takes.

The word "fag" once meant cigarette - still does in some parts of the world. Most know it's a slur, and it doesn't matter whether a majority of dictionaries describe it that way or not. Most adults who care enough to discuss the politics of gays and lesbians know it's something that gays and lesbians take offense to when used by non-gays and non-lesbians. The other day Septimus used the word "tranny" to refer to transgendered people. He used it because at one time, it wasn't considered offensive. Not realizing it was no longer p.c., he used it and was warned for it. (FTR, Septimus apologized and said he wasn't aware it was no longer an acceptable term, and I believe him - he's a good poster).

The same is true of "illegal." You can say that so-and-so is an "illegal immigrant" or that "illegal immigrants" put a strain on the resources of some local communities. But the term "illegals," like many other slurs, is offensive because of its casual usage. It's used casually to describe a group of people. The term also reinforces the idea that they are "the other," and that they're low class. Even if someone is 100% factually correct in pointing out that they don't have legal status, it's dehumanizing to label them in that way because it so often ignores the understandable reasons many have for skipping the immigration process. Many "illegals" are, in fact, decent people who just want a better life for themselves and their families. People can disagree with their decision and their justifications for crossing the border illegally - that doesn't make someone a racist or a bigot. But one could argue throwing them into some broad category or class of people and debasing them with a term that reinforces their low status is bigoted behavior. At the very least, it's insensitive. Dictionaries aren't required to prove that point.
  #38  
Old 06-13-2019, 07:26 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
You're just splitting hairs, Waldo. A word becomes a slur when it is used to describe a group of people, and when people take umbrage to the slur. That's really all it takes.
But that gets at what I’m asking, in all sincerity: the word ‘felon’ describes a group of people; is it a slur if they “take umbrage” to that? The word ‘trespasser’ describes a group of people; is it a slur if it’s met with umbrage?

If so, then, sure, I guess I’m fine with using such slurs. If your two-part test is the one we’re to apply, then as far as I know I’m already making regular use of slurs. Heck, maybe I can meet something with umbrage and jab an accusatory finger at a slurrer, if they so describe me and I then, uh, “take umbrage”?
  #39  
Old 06-13-2019, 09:57 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
But that gets at what I’m asking, in all sincerity: the word ‘felon’ describes a group of people; is it a slur if they “take umbrage” to that? The word ‘trespasser’ describes a group of people; is it a slur if it’s met with umbrage?
Yes, I suppose it can if the word becomes frequently associated with reference to specific types of people. Take the word "thug," for example. A generation or two ago, a thug referred to a violent person or a criminal generally. However, in today's context, particularly when speaking in reference to a black person, it can just as easily be understood to refer to a violent black criminal, or a more socially acceptable way of using the n-word.

The real point you're refusing to acknowledge is that words have denotative meanings and connotative meanings. Words are attempts to describe thoughts and ideas. In communication, it's thoughts and ideas first, and words second, not the other way around. Words frequently fail to describe ideas, feelings, and thoughts with precision, which is why how words are intended and also interpreted depends a LOT on the context. Words can have more than one definition, and Webster's isn't necessarily the last word on what a word means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
If so, then, sure, I guess I’m fine with using such slurs. If your two-part test is the one we’re to apply, then as far as I know I’m already making regular use of slurs. Heck, maybe I can meet something with umbrage and jab an accusatory finger at a slurrer, if they so describe me and I then, uh, “take umbrage”?
That's right, show everyone reading this that rather than showing a willingness to try to understand why people might be offended, you just don't give a shit. Racism isn't your problem, I guess.
  #40  
Old 06-13-2019, 12:52 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
But that gets at what I’m asking, in all sincerity: the word ‘felon’ describes a group of people; is it a slur if they “take umbrage” to that? The word ‘trespasser’ describes a group of people; is it a slur if it’s met with umbrage?
I can't find any evidence that those words are defined as being slurs, disparaging, or offensive.

So should I take your questions as essentially asking why the word "cunt" is offensive but the word "apple" is not? Are you this stupid?
  #41  
Old 06-13-2019, 01:35 PM
Typo Negative's Avatar
Typo Negative is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 17,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
You're just splitting hairs, Waldo. A word becomes a slur when it is used to describe a group of people, and when people take umbrage to the slur. That's really all it takes.
This way too vague to have any meaning at all. Doper is a word to describe a group of people. It can describe several groups depending on the context.

But fine, I will concede the point if it will get the discussion back on point. In all future posts I will not use the term, but will type out the full 'illegal aliens'.
__________________
"God hates Facts"

- seen on a bumper sticker in Sacramento Ca
  #42  
Old 06-13-2019, 05:32 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Hypothetical? Broomstick, who doesn’t seem to be at all on my side here, didn’t merely grant that there might be some dictionaries out there that don't make that notation, but immediately went on to mention one that doesn’t.
Again, an OLD dictionary. One that is also missing terms like "microcomputer" and "cellphone" and so on. It's nowhere near current.

Quote:
Is it a slur to describe people as “felons” instead of phrasing it in some other way? Is it a slur to accurately describe people as “trespassers” or “perjurers” — or as “arsonists” or “burglars” or whatever, on through the alphabet — instead of wording it some other way? In a sense, you could say it is; and yet, yes, all of that strikes me as fine. So fine, in fact, that I’m not sure that’s what it means to use a slur.

Would you say ‘illegals’ is a slur the way ‘felons’ and ‘trespassers’ and ‘perjurers’ and the rest are? Or are you saying it’s a slur in a way they’re not?
A major difference between felons (and the rest of the folks you mention) and people crossing the international border without following preferred procedures is that the felons have been tried in a court of law . People wandering over the border? Who knows? Are they people with legitimate claim to asylum or refugee status? Did they get drunk and wander across the line by accident? (Believe it or not, it IS possible to cross such a border by accident)

That's why terms like "undocumented" are less inflammatory. It indicates a non-standard entry without passing judgement on it prior to a formal hearing which may or may not bring to light more information. Due process - something we're all supposed to have in the country.
  #43  
Old 06-13-2019, 06:24 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Again, an OLD dictionary. One that is also missing terms like "microcomputer" and "cellphone" and so on. It's nowhere near current.
If I a cite a sufficiently current one — what then? Would one suffice to show BigT was wrong, or will it get handwaved away as some unique outlier until I provide a second? Or will that still not be enough to show BigT’s “any” comment was wrong? What, exactly, would it take to show that BigT was wrong?

Quote:
A major difference between felons (and the rest of the folks you mention) and people crossing the international border without following preferred procedures is that the felons have been tried in a court of law .
That line there about “the rest of the folks you mention” — is that true? Because, to pick just one: the part where I mentioned “trespassers” brings to mind how people sure do seem toss that word around, descriptively or conversationally or whatever, even before the folks in question have been tried in a court of law; the term just gets put out there, unremarkably but doing useful work, every so often, right?

Quote:
That's why terms like "undocumented" are less inflammatory. It indicates a non-standard entry without passing judgement on it prior to a formal hearing which may or may not bring to light more information.
But what if they are documented? What if the — illegal aliens? Is that what we’re to go with, referring to them as both illegal and as aliens, because like the man said it may facilitate discussion and thus be worth the shrug even if I keep seeing it as a distinction without a difference — so, okay, what if the illegal aliens in question happen to be here illegally as a mere matter of documented fact? Isn’t what’s relevant the illegality, regardless of if it happens to be documented?
  #44  
Old 06-13-2019, 06:38 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
If I a cite a sufficiently current one — what then? Would one suffice to show BigT was wrong, or will it get handwaved away as some unique outlier until I provide a second? Or will that still not be enough to show BigT’s “any” comment was wrong? What, exactly, would it take to show that BigT was wrong?
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.

It's a very common term, used of the term, and view of that term.

Quote:
That line there about “the rest of the folks you mention” — is that true? Because, to pick just one: the part where I mentioned “trespassers” brings to mind how people sure do seem toss that word around, descriptively or conversationally or whatever, even before the folks in question have been tried in a court of law; the term just gets put out there, unremarkably but doing useful work, every so often, right?
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.

Quote:
But what if they are documented? What if the — illegal aliens? Is that what we’re to go with, referring to them as both illegal and as aliens, because like the man said it may facilitate discussion and thus be worth the shrug even if I keep seeing it as a distinction without a difference — so, okay, what if the illegal aliens in question happen to be here illegally as a mere matter of documented fact? Isn’t what’s relevant the illegality, regardless of if it happens to be documented?
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.

If you have certain legal documents are a legal immigrant or legal alien. Again, that might be anything from permission to be here on vacation to some sort of visa or permission to live here permanently and work here as well. If you do not posses any such document you are an illegal immigrant or illegal alien. If so, you are SUPPOSED TO get a hearing where you can plead your case. Maybe you were on a boat on Lake Huron and got blown to the wrong side of the border (that actually does happen - also in Lake Superior, the Detroit River, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario...). Maybe you were snowshoeing along the Montana/Canadian border in January and got lost. Maybe you arrived somehow or other from, say, Somalia and claim you face certain death if forced to return... which, if you can substantiate that might get you a claim of asylum in which case, even if you entered the US without permission you will be given permission to stay at which point you move from "illegal immigrant" to "legal immigrant" without penalty, perhaps one day moving to "citizen". You might enter as a legal refugee.

Or maybe you have no permission to enter at all, snuck in, have no right to be here, maybe you have nefarious ideas of what to do here - but that's not for the average person in the street to determine, any more than the average person in the street is allowed to sit as a judge in a felony trial.

In other words, there are a variety of legal documents and permissions by which you are allowed to stay in the US. Possession of those is what is meant by "documented". A hearing in front of judge is how the determination is SUPPOSED TO be made as to whether or not someone has legal permission to be here or not.

Last edited by Broomstick; 06-13-2019 at 06:39 PM.
  #45  
Old 06-14-2019, 04:32 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
If I a cite a sufficiently current one — what then? Would one suffice to show BigT was wrong, or will it get handwaved away as some unique outlier until I provide a second? Or will that still not be enough to show BigT’s “any” comment was wrong? What, exactly, would it take to show that BigT was wrong?
How about you actually cite one, instead of ranting on and on about how BigT is wrong, even though you refuse to actual prove your point?


So I'll do it. The vast majority of current dictionaries dealing with the general English language define illegal as a derogatory slur. SMDB Squirrels define you as a ranting, lazy pedant.
  #46  
Old 06-13-2019, 11:53 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,522
Illegal is regularly used against people based on skin color, country of origin, accent/language, and more features that have nothing to do with immigration status (in my personal experience, at least half the time the users of the word "illegal" couldn't possibly have knowledge of the immigration status of those they are targeting with the word). It's become a slur because it's used like a slur and received like a slur. Maybe the first people who used the n-word didn't intend it as a slur. Maybe some of them kept using it with a non-slur intention. But it doesn't matter -- once tons of people are using it as a slur, and receiving it as a slur, then it's a slur. Which is the case for "illegal" as a noun.
  #47  
Old 06-13-2019, 12:20 PM
Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 21,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
You cannot make words mean whatever you want them to mean.
This is hilarious in 2019.
  #48  
Old 06-13-2019, 12:57 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,698


I appreciate them.

  #49  
Old 06-13-2019, 06:54 PM
not what you'd expect is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post


I appreciate them.

So do I and I would bet most dopers appreciate you as well.
  #50  
Old 06-16-2019, 06:37 AM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,473
Next up:
Were the authorities too soft on people who violated the Fugitive Slave Act through their so-called "Underground Railroad" known safe spaces.
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017