Well, take a close look at what you’re quoting me as saying: I’m noting that – as opposed to earlier in this thread – I now know what your benchmark is. I didn’t know, back when, whether you in particular have the benchmark of Do You Want To Come Here And Make A Better Life For You And Your Family, such that, if the answer is “yes”, then you’re in. I would’ve been hesitant to make that implication about you before; I’m comfortable making that implication about you now.
Well, it could be, of course. I mean, if someone tells me they want to reform said programs and create said path for half of the illegals while kicking out the other half, th clearly that’d be the latter without being the former. But if someone else tells me they “want illegals to stay” such that they want to reform said programs and create said path for all of them – well, that’d be both.
Why do you persist in making these claims about me? I tell you they aren’t true, and yet you keep on keeping on with them. Seems you’re just dishonest.
They’re the only method? That seems – what’s the word? – dishonest.
No, that’s what I think you said. Again, there was a time when I didn’t know whether that was your benchmark – but, once you mentioned it, I of course granted that it’s, uh, your benchmark. It’s not my benchmark, of course, and it’s not a benchmark that I think would be good for the country; but I grant that it’s yours, because, well, you said so, word-for-word, and I see no reason to doubt you.
The problem – as I also said – is that the term “undocumented immigrant” is, in its way, even more problematic. Because: what are we to call someone who is, in a word, “documented”? Isn’t the whole point that some of 'em can document the exact date when they overstayed their visa and their status flipped from ‘legal’ to ‘illegal’?
So what term should I use to refer to (a) the aliens who entered the United States illegally and are deportable if apprehended, and to the aliens who entered legally but have since fallen out of status and are now deportable? One wasn’t documented, but the other was; that’s not what they have in common…
If you want numbers, why don’t you look at the actual numbers allocated by the actual government of the United States? That is, at the very least, a decent starting point because, despite all the claims about Democrats wanting open borders, the Democrats made virtually no changes at all to the way that immigration quotas work when they were in power.
Basically, current immigration levels are controlled largely by the Immigration Act of 1990, and reflect the broader changes introduced in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which got rid of the racist and xenophobic nationality-based quotas set in the immigration laws of 1921 and 1924, as well as older measures like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
When Obama held the White House and Democrats held both houses of Congress from 2009 to 2011, they made no really substantive changes at all to this system. Legal immigration levels have not really been affected very much, since the 1990 Act, by whether Democrats or Republicans are in power. The law worked the same under Clinton and Obama as it did under Bush 41 and Bush 43. It still works pretty much the same under Trump, with the exception of his typically idiotic and ill-advised efforts to ban immigration from certain countries, and his broken promise that the USCIS would focus mainly on “criminal” immigrants.
There are some people on the left who believe that immigration quotas should be increased. There are some on the left who argue that we shouldn’t have specific quotas at all, but should have a more flexible system designed to respond to specific circumstances and the changing push and pull factors that contribute to migration patterns. There are even some who call for open borders. And there are also some free-market economists who argue that open borders would lead to dramatic economic productivity gains worldwide that would far exceed any temporary downturns caused by immigration.
I take no particular position on any of these issues. I am simply here to point out the lie that Democrats have been advocating open borders. While there are a few lefties who call for open borders, none of this open border talk has been a significant part of Democratic policy-making in the area of immigration, and in the Democratic Party itself, there has been very little talk of even making significant adjustments to the 1990 Act. In fact, one of the biggest criticisms that immigration activists made of the Democrats under Bush 43 and under Obama is that they made so little effort to enact sensible immigration reform. Obviously, not all people agree on what sensible reform would look like, but for the Democratic Party, it most certainly has NOT involved a call for open borders, and it hasn’t really involved any strong push for increased quotas.
In fact, the main focus of Democratic activism on this issue has been a call for a plan to deal with the 10-million-plus illegal immigrants currently in the United States. It has been a call to recognize the reality of this situation, to accept that it would be both inhumane and impractical to deport them all, and to offer a path to legal status, residency, and perhaps eventual citizenship for at least some of them. That’s precisely what DACA was designed to do: to recognize the humanity of people who came to the United States illegally, but came as children and were not able to make that decision for themselves. It recognizes the depravity of sending young people back to countries that, in many cases, they don’t even remember, and where they often have no friends or family, and no prospects.
You mean, like the incredible importance of immigrant labor in shaping that dynamic economy?
I’m not rationalizing anything: to the best of my knowledge, I don’t refer to kids as “shoplifters” if they’re not, y’know, shoplifters; but I do, in fact, refer to shoplifters as “shoplifters”, because – well, because that’s not what using a term for my own purposes looks like; the whole point of using a term when it’s true, and refraining when it’s false, is that True and False are doing all the work.
That’s why “well I don’t call kids that word” is relevant: it’s not rationalizing, it’s just rational. If you’re a murderer but not a shoplifter, then I’ll refer to you as a murderer but not a shoplifter; if you’re a shoplifter but not a murderer, then I’ll refer to you as a shoplifter but not a murderer; if you’re neither, but you’re a convicted felon, then I’ll refer to you as “a convicted felon” while refraining from the rest.
And if a given kid is none of those, I’d – refer to him as none of those.
At least now you are quoting what I actually said, instead of paraphrasing and leaving important things out. Unfortunately, you are not reading what you are quoting. Last hint, the word “make” is important there. Not receive, not get, not just have, but “make”. And I also pointed out immediately after I posed that introductory question that there would be other questions (and vetting) to ensure that that is a truthful answer, as well as a probation period to ensure that they are holding up their end.
If someone makes a better life for themselves and their family, they also make the community they are in better, the state and country as well. We have plenty of people that are born here that just want to sponge off the largess that our ancestors (immigrants) built. The people coming here to work to improve their lives and the lives of those around them are the ones that built that largess that we currently take for granted.
Not all of them, just the ones that want to stay and be productive members of society and work to improve their lives, the lives of their families, and the lives of those in their communities. There are plenty of people that are here illegally that I have no problem booting out. They have no desire to work to improve their communities. There are criminals and other people who harm society, and those people I have no problem with removing.
Cool thing is, with a better immigration policy that allows more people to come in through controlled borders, we can assume that anyone coming in through uncontrolled parts of the border is not coming here to make a better life, but to engage in criminal activity. That way, when we kick people out, they don’t have as easy a time sneaking back in. If the immigrant communities did not fear that the police would report them and get them deported, they would feel more able to report and remove the criminals hiding in their communities.
There are also lazy people, people that don’t want to work or to do anything to support themselves, much less their communities, but those are largely native born citizens with an entitlement, not immigrants who walked several days across a desert to get here.
You have yet to have condemned the actions of Sheriff Arpaio, and your rhetoric matches his on feelings towards immigrants, so I do make the assumption that you are on the same page as he is. If you would like to separate yourself from him, by all means, do so. But his actions were legally violative of the rights of citizens, citizens whose families have roots to the land they live on that go back longer than yours do. If you say that you disagree with his methods of “enforcing” immigration laws, then I will believe you.
Okay, tell me how else you tell if someone is here legally without asking to see their identification?
No, I think you thought I said, “Do you want to come here?”, “Do you want to have a better life”, or “Do you want to live here and have stuff.” Which is not what I said. I said, “make a better life.”
Read for comprehension, bub.
If you want to be specific then, you can say “An overstayed visa immigrant”. But you are trying to make semantics where there aren’t any. If you do not renew your license, you are an unlicensed driver. You can document the exact date that you went from being a licensed driver to an unlicensed driver. They may charge you with driving with on an expired license, but that is because you do not have a valid driver’s license, you are an unlicensed driver.
Point is, they don’t have currently authorized documents, therefore, they are undocumented. It is perfectly accurate.
Still, your whole tirade on how you call someone who commits murder a murderer, and so on does not fit, not at all. If your tirade was that you call a murderer an illegal, and an arsonist an illegal, and a litterer an illegal, then you would be consistent, at least, in calling anyone who breaks a law an illegal. But it is only this one particular catagory of laws that you stop referring to them by the law that they broke, and instead to their status as someone who broke a law.
Your inconstancy, and insistence on breaking the pattern that you claimed to hold for this particular law being broken shows that the only reason that you do it is because you are a shitty person.
What is it that you guys (and I agree) always say about insults based on race, appearance or mental handicap? The recipients can’t help it. That they were born that way and have no control over it, so it’s wrong to insult or make fun of them for it. Obviously such is not the case with people who’ve decided to break immigration law and sneak into the country. Thus they’re here illegally, and as such ‘illegals’ is a perfectly apt descriptor. Referring to them as illegals is no more a slur than is calling a convict a convict.
No, that’s not what we say (once again you demonstrate that you have little understanding of what real world liberals actually believe). It’s wrong to slur people always. Doesn’t matter if it’s a choice to be gay or not – it’s wrong to slur gay people. Doesn’t matter if someone chooses to wear their hair a certain way – slurring based on hairstyle is wrong. Insults might be reasonable sometimes (feel free to call someone being an asshole an asshole), but not slurs, which are specific negative and derogatory terms used based on some sort of non-character-based status that some people find inferior or otherwise unacceptable – whether race, gender, sexuality, disability, or in this case perceptions of how they got to this country (many of which are factually incorrect).
I don’t see the relevance, but of course strive to oblige you: if you think it matters that they want to “make” a better life, then (a) you’re welcome to that benchmark, and (b) I still find it to be utterly wretched.
I don’t see how that follows at all. It seems entirely possible for someone to make a better life for themselves here than they would’ve had somewhere else, and yet do this country and state and community no favors: whether that person happens to be better off here seems irrelevant to whether we’re better off with them here – regardless of whether they, uh, make.
Well, I’d advise you not to make that assumption; why not ask? Here:
Name an action and I’ll tell you whether I agree with it or disagree with it. Name two and I’ll tell you whether I agree with the former and disagree with the latter. I’m right here; you can ask, and I’ll answer – and if the answer is “I disagree”, then you can believe me like you just said – all without bothering to assume.
That’s something of a different question, isn’t it? You said that ‘papers please’ laws are “the only method of ‘cracking down’ on undocumented immigrants.” Strictly speaking, I’d be right and you’d be wrong if we were merely to, ah, ‘crack down’ on anyone who happens to (a) be here illegally, and (b) be obliging enough to mention their legal status on their own initiative.
Well, you’re wrong.
Well, not really, no; my point – maybe you missed it? – was, I’m looking for a term that encompasses both that, and also the group of folks who never had a visa in the first place. You know, much like how I use “convicted felons” to encompass both folks who’ve been convicted of committing one type of felony, and also folks who’ve been convicted of committing other felonies.
I mean, yes, sometimes I only want to refer to convicted murderers, at which point I so limit myself; but sometimes I want to refer to all convicted felons, and do so.
So you really don’t see a key difference between “we documented this guy’s date of entry; and informed him, in writing, of just how long he could legally stay here” and “we have no record of this other guy ever entering our country”, huh? I don’t see how that helps; sometimes I’ll want to refer to one or the other, and sometimes I’ll want to encompass both.
I believe I refer to that group as “lawbreakers”.
That’s nonsense: the pattern isn’t upheld by “calling anyone who breaks a law an illegal”; it’s upheld by calling anyone who breaks a law “a lawbreaker”.
Here’s the thing, though: you mention that he’s “an immigrant” – but I doubt I’d even call him “an immigrant”, unless that happened to be relevant.
After all, I know someone who happens to be an immigrant – which is a fact that I’m mentioning, right now, to you, precisely because it’s relevant as I’m typing out this very post. But whenever I talk with her in person, I don’t mention it to her; because, well, she already knows it, and it would be weird for me to point it out. After all, I’ve also never had occasion to tell her that she’s five-foot-four.
And, likewise, when I’ve had occasion to mention her to other folks – well, I’ve rarely had occasion to mention that she happens to be an immigrant, or that she happens to be five-foot-four. Not never, you understand; obviously I’m mentioning, right now, that she happens to (a) be an immigrant, and (b) be five-foot-four.
But I’ve never said, out loud, that she’s “a five-foot-four immigrant”. Because, well, that would be weird. I’ve never actually been in a situation where it’d make sense for me to speak that phrase: not as a shout, and not as a whisper; and not to her, and not to anyone else; because – why the heck would I? It’s true, and you can contrive a situation where I’d say it; but I can assure you, it hasn’t come up.
So, coming back around, I’ve never had reason to call someone – er, that.
Awesome that you find the idea of people making a better life to be wretched.
Possible, maybe, but it would be pretty hard. They’d have to hold no job, buy no products, and never fix up their house or mow the lawn. And, as I said, we’d have a probation period, so if they do come here and are as lazy as the natives, then we can ask them to head on back home now. Making a better life involves effort on their part.
Okay, do you agree with Arpaio’s enforcement of immigration laws? Specifically the ones where he had his deputies ask people on the street, who were suspected of no crime, to see their ID to see if they were here legally?
SMH, really? So, you are saying that you only support immigration laws that are enforced on people that admit their legal status? That’s actually even worse than open borders. What do you do in the unlikely event that people lie?
Okay, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you misunderstood me through a communication error on my part. I was incorrect, and it is a willful desire to misunderstand me that you are operating under. Thank you for setting me straight.
I didn’t miss it, not at all. I even gave an example that you snipped out, because it proved you were wrong.
Tell me, what do you call someone who used to have a driver’s license, but had their license expire several years ago?
Sure, there are differences, but so? Does that mean that the only thing you can call them is a slur? In either case, they do not have current authorizing documents, therefore, undocumented. If, for legal reasons, the specific type and nature of immigration violation that the committed may be relevant, in which case they either entered the country without documentation, or they overstayed their visa, in neither case, did they “commit an illegal”.
So, even less justification for use of a slur.
The pattern is upheld by you yourself saying that you would refer to anyone who commits a crime by the name of that crime, except for the case of immigration, in which case, you use a slur that does not refer to the nature of the crime that they committed.
Doesn’t really answer my question. Would you refer to someone who got their back wet from crossing a river in the process of immigrating a “wetback”? If not, why not?
This is somewhat rhetorical, I think you’ll see – you probably consider “wetback” a real slur, and illegal not a real slur. I’m telling you that this is wrong – “illegal” is also a slur.
You could join the ranks of Clothahump, if you want, and insist that it’s okay to call them “wetbacks” because he doesn’t think it’s a slur.
But you’re really already with him anyway, just with a different slur.
Let’s not forget the fact that “illegal” is a shortening of the term “illegal immigrant”. It may sound cute to allege that one is also an illegal if one breaks the speed limit or jaywalks or lets their drivers license expire, but it’s a silly and specious argument that isn’t going to accomplish anything or get you anywhere.
First, “illegal immigrant”, while slightly more descriptive, is still a derogatory term, so shortening a derogatory term doesn’t make it any better.
Second, my example of a driver’s license is that if you let it expire, you become an unlicensed driver, which was to point out that someone who overstays their visa is an undocumented immigrant, in the same way.
Oh, and a third, the fact that TOWP insists upon calling all lawbreakers by the laws that they broke, except in the case of undocumented immigrants, in which case he uses a slur that does not refer to the law that they broke.
I’m sure he appreciates the attempt, but you aren’t really helping him. (Not that he is helping himself here any either).
Did you know that the racial slur “Paki” is a shortening of the term “Pakistani”? Did you know that there are probably dozens of other racial or ethnic or religious slurs that are shortenings of other non-slur terms?
Careful, you’re letting your frustration show through.
Yes, and I also know that one can’t help the country one is born in and as such, this kind of insult is wrong.
I also know that the rest of your post has nothing to do with my point, which is not that anything is okay if it’s shortened, but that’s it stupid in this case to try to equate the term ‘illegal’ with any form of illegality because it’s being used specifically to refer to people who’ve immigrated here illegally as opposed to lawbreaking in general.
And if all slurs and criticism is to be off the table, I’ll look forward to your defense when liberals, as they always do, make fun of conservative hairstyles, modes of dress, and advocacy of such things as individual responsibility and family values.
Well, your benchmark is – excuse me; as I understand it, your benchmark is: that you’d let them in, to make a better life for themselves, regardless of whether they’d make my life worse; and regardless of whether they’d make my family’s life worse; and regardless of whether they make life worse, on the whole, for the citizens of this country in general, and of any given state in particular.
As long as each person would be leaving someplace even slightly less worse to make an even slightly better life for themselves here, then you’d let 'em in until we finally got this country to a point where we’d run out of folks who could say that.
I find that wretched.
Why the absolutism? Why never" and “no”? How about someone who sometimes holds down a job, and who buys minimal products, and who rarely fixes things up and hardly ever mows a lawn? If that’s better than the life he’d have had somewhere else, then wouldn’t your benchmark let him in?
And the hypothetical guy I just mentioned – the one who makes a better life here than he’d had at home – would his efforts suffice to let him stay?
Nope.
Well, take what you just asked about asking folks on the street – who are suspected of no crime – for their IDs; you asked, and I said I was against it; and, as I understood it, that’s what a ‘papers please’ law would be. By contrast, I’m actually okay with asking someone for an ID if they’ve already been legitimately arrested; and, at that point, I’d like to think we could ascertain whether they’re here illegally – and, if so, we could then, ah, ‘crack down’ on them. So that’s a second way you were wrong.
I can come up with a third, if you like; I have time.
I don’t believe I’ve ever been in a situation where I’ve needed to refer to that group of people. I also don’t recall ever being in a situation where I’ve needed to refer to people who’ve never had such a license in the first place. I also also don’t recall ever being in a situation where I’ve needed a term encompassing both groups.
I also don’t recall ever needing a term for people who were born on the 17th of the month during Nixon’s first term, and one for those who were born on the 17th of the month during Nixon’s second term, and one that encompasses both.
As far as I know, there simply isn’t a one-word or two-word term that conveys exactly what I’d want to get across – and so I’d have little choice but to use some roundabout phrase instead, reluctantly saying something like “he’s a guy who used to have a valid driver’s license, but the one he has on him expired a while ago.”
Seems clunky; if this were a situation that I had to discuss regularly – which it apparently isn’t – I’d wish there were a more convenient shorthand for that.
Well, did they “commit an illegal” action – such that the alien in question currently has a legal status such that they’re “deportable”?
Well, that’s not entirely true, is it? As I’ve said, I may well have occasion to refer to someone as a “convicted felon” – pointedly not referring to him by the name of that crime, but by a term that encompasses both him and other folks who got convicted of something else entirely. Likewise, there are times when I’ll refer to someone as specifically having served in the Army; but there are times when I’ll more generally refer to that same someone as having served in the military.
Sometimes I’ll refer to a Senator – since that’s the name of her actual job – but if I find myself needing to refer to members of both Houses of Congress, I’ll of course use a term that encompasses both: one that’s less specific, sure; but one that still conveys the desired Oh-Yes-I-Know-What-Group-You-Mean meaning.
I’ve never been in a situation where it’s been worth saying. I’ve also never been in a situation where I’ve had any reason to call someone a “dryknee”. I’ve also never been in a situation where I’ve pondered calling someone a “scarredthigh”.
I’ve criticized liberals who blanket insult conservatives many times on this board. Slurs are wrong, as are blanket attacks on millions, no matter the target. It’s always funny when people on this board throw this at me, since I routinely tell liberal posters that it’s wrong to tar all conservatives for the sins or deficiencies of a few.
If you want to be the kind of guy who justifies using slurs like “illegal” to himself, feel free, but I’m going to continue to call you and others out for it. There’s no reason for it, and it’s just dehumanizing people for no reason at all.