# Conservatives on immigration are the most vicious people on earth **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 20, 2017, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-on-immigration-are-the-most-vicious-people-on-earth/784828 "2017-04-20T08:38:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2017, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-on-immigration-are-the-most-vicious-people-on-earth/784828/141 "2017-04-23T01:50:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, it doesn’t. It places the percentage of people that year at 66%, and as a majority every year since 2007. But what it says about the total number present in the country (and this is your link, remember) is: It isn’t known how many of the total immigrant population arrived legally vs. crossed the border without permission. What we currently know as fact is based on relatively recent increased tracking of visa overstays. By estimates, the number for the total population shouldn’t be all that lopsided toward illegal entry over overstayed visa. Are you trying to argue that the number is 0? Because otherwise any argument you’re making is totally irrelevant anyway. For the question of a term becoming considered to be an offensive slur it wouldn’t matter if it was 2%. It still could become an offensive slur. Respecting the sensibilities of a minority class pretty obviously can’t be based on them being a majority. > [@Bricker](#): > > That’s certainly true when discussing a specific case. But in the aggregate, we know that 42% of overstays were not sustaining themselves over the long term on bags of money found on the ground or the large savings they brought with them. > > So what? The use of fraudulent documents in order to get hired is a crime. That crime is not erased merely because the employer hires you and thus triggers your right to sue him for bad conditions. You still can’t assume that any one unauthorized immigrant is a criminal based on the idea that at least some of them must be, or that just because they are working they necessarily falsified any documents. Do I understand correctly that you are or were a criminal defense lawyer? It seems very odd to need to explain this to you in that case. Besides coming with their own savings or finding a bag of money on the ground, there are a whole lot of other possibilities that don’t involve fraudulent papers. Maybe someone is paying them to do day jobs without doing any identity check or reporting. Maybe they are self-employed. Maybe they live with family or friends who are legal residents or citizens. Maybe they collect cans and turn them in to recycling centers. You’re already swimming upstream by arguing in favor of a term that is well on its way out of polite use regardless of any arguments against it. But the argument that “Some of them must be doing something illegal so it’s accurate to call them all illegal.” is still remarkably stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2017, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-on-immigration-are-the-most-vicious-people-on-earth/784828/142 "2017-04-23T02:18:57Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > It isn’t known how many of the total immigrant population arrived legally vs. crossed the border without permission. What we currently know as fact is based on relatively recent increased tracking of visa overstays. By estimates, the number for the total population shouldn’t be all that lopsided toward illegal entry over overstayed visa. Are you trying to argue that the number is 0? Because otherwise any argument you’re making is totally irrelevant anyway. I’m arguing that the number is below 50%, as the cite you yourself offered shows it to be. And since it’s below 50%, the claims above that a majority of illegal immigrants are not guilty of any crime is false. That’s what I’m arguing. > [@](#): > > For the question of a term becoming considered to be an offensive slur it wouldn’t matter if it was 2%. It still could become an offensive slur. Respecting the sensibilities of a minority class pretty obviously can’t be based on them being a majority. What??? A mere 2% can cause a term to be considered an offensive slur? Then why not 1%? 0.1%? No, no, I completely reject that claim. It cannot possibility the case that the definitive declaration of an offensive slur can rest on such slim grounds. What’s the authority for this claim? Ate you simply making up rules? > [@](#): > > You still can’t assume that any one unauthorized immigrant is a criminal based on the idea that at least some of them must be, or that just because they are working they necessarily falsified any documents. Do I understand correctly that you are or were a criminal defense lawyer? It seems very odd to need to explain this to you in that case. > > Besides coming with their own savings or finding a bag of money on the ground, there are a whole lot of other possibilities that don’t involve fraudulent papers. > Maybe someone is paying them to do day jobs without doing any identity check or reporting. Maybe they are self-employed. Maybe they live with family or friends who are legal residents or citizens. Maybe they collect cans and turn them in to recycling centers. Yes, yes, again I agree that’s possibly true for any given individual. but you cannot possibly want me to take seriously the claim that it’s likely to be true for the vasy majority. Do you genuinely believe this is true for the vast majority? > [@](#): > > You’re already swimming upstream by arguing in favor of a term that is well on its way out of polite use regardless of any arguments against it. But the argument that “Some of them must be doing something illegal so it’s accurate to call them all illegal.” is still remarkably stupid. I say that it’s correct to refer to a person who is in the country without lawful authorization for that presence as an illegal immigrant. Each one is illegally here, by definition. They are immigrants, by definition. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2017, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-on-immigration-are-the-most-vicious-people-on-earth/784828/143 "2017-04-23T02:47:31Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > I’m not very sympathetic to attempts to undermine language for the purpose of making it difficult to discuss. That’s what is Orwellian. The idea that perverting and restricting language makes it easier for the ruling class to control the populace. I eagerly anticipate seeing your posts peppered with “spics” and “wops” and “niggers” and “kikes” and “micks” and “chinks” and “gooks”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2017, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-on-immigration-are-the-most-vicious-people-on-earth/784828/144 "2017-04-23T03:03:27Z")
Here’s where I believe this type of thinking is [inevitably leading:](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/my-halloween-email-led-to-a-campus-firestorm--and-a-troubling-lesson-about-self-censorship/2016/10/28/70e55732-9b97-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.ad8580d2af67) > [@](#): > > The right to speak freely may be enshrined in some of our nation’s great universities, but the culture of listening needs repair. That is the lesson I learned a year ago, when I sent [an email urging Yale University students](https://www.thefire.org/email-from-erika-christakis-dressing-yourselves-email-to-silliman-college-yale-students-on-halloween-costumes/) to think critically about an official set of guidelines on costumes to avoid at Halloween. > > I had hoped to generate a reflective conversation among students: What happens when one person’s offense is another person’s pride? Should a costume-wearer’s intent or context matter? Can we always tell the difference between a mocking costume and one that satirizes ignorance? In what circumstances should we allow — or punish — youthful transgression? > > “I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation,” I wrote, in part. “I know that many decent people have proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students.” > . > . > . > Nearly a thousand students, faculty and deans called for my and my husband’s immediate removal from our jobs and campus home. Some demanded not only apologies for any unintended racial insensitivity (which we gladly offered) but also a complete disavowal of my ideas (which we did not) — as well as advance warning of my appearances in the dining hall so that students accusing me of fostering violence wouldn’t be disturbed by the sight of me. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2017, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-on-immigration-are-the-most-vicious-people-on-earth/784828/145 "2017-04-23T03:14:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m arguing that the number is below 50%, as the cite you yourself offered shows it to be. And since it’s below 50%, the claims above that a majority of illegal immigrants are not guilty of any crime is false. > > That’s what I’m arguing. You’re just willfully refusing to see the forest for the trees. It wouldn’t matter if I said “a lot of…” instead of “half of…”, or even “some percentage of…” you’re still classifying an entire group of people with a term that is undoubtedly incorrect in more than zero cases. And better than more than zero it’s even fair to say a “lot” or even “millions.” > [@Bricker](#): > > What??? A mere 2% can cause a term to be considered an offensive slur? > > Then why not 1%? 0.1%? > > No, no, I completely reject that claim. It cannot possibility the case that the definitive declaration of an offensive slur can rest on such slim grounds. Of course it can. What percentage of the population was black when “colored” became a slur or Asian when “oriental” did. What percentage of the population is gay, Irish, or Japanese? Why would you think that if a group makes up only a small percentage of a population that alone would be a justifiable reason for not respecting their sensibilities? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2017, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-on-immigration-are-the-most-vicious-people-on-earth/784828/146 "2017-04-23T03:24:42Z")
[And another:](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-fraternity-was-told-it-was-appropriating-culture-administrators-wont-say-which/2017/04/20/d57fa01a-25e1-11e7-b503-9d616bd5a305_story.html?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1_na&utm_term=.fbda8834e836) > [@](#): > > Several weeks ago, a fraternity at AU, Sigma Alpha Mu, began planning a fundraiser for a veterans’ organization. Student groups often center fundraisers on athletic tournaments, fraternity president and sophomore Rocco Cimino told me, but all the popular sports had already been claimed. The fraternity members decided to go with . . . badminton. > . > . > . > To jazz things up, they called their event “Bad(minton) and Boujee.” It’s a pun on “Bad and Boujee,” a popular rap song by the group Migos about being newly rich and hanging with materialistic women. Sigma Alpha Mu registered the fundraiser on American’s online scheduling system, required for all campus events. > > A few days later Cimino got a strange email from the school. > > Colin Gerker, assistant director of fraternity and sorority life, said the word “boujee” might be criticized for “appropriating culture.” He would not approve the event unless the fraternity changed the name. > > “I want to continue empowering a culture of controversy prevention among [Greek] groups,” Gerker wrote. He advised them to “stay away from gender, culture, or sexuality for thematic titles.” > > The students were perplexed. The school was never able to articulate what, precisely, was being appropriated. Perhaps **Crazyhorse** complained. Did you do that, **Crazyhorse**? Did you insist that just because you were offended at “Bad(minton) and Boujee,” that the kids had to cancel their event? Was it your 0.1% theory being tested? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2017, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-on-immigration-are-the-most-vicious-people-on-earth/784828/147 "2017-04-23T03:30:33Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > You’re just willfully refusing to see the forest for the trees. It wouldn’t matter if I said “a lot of…” instead of “half of…”, or even “some percentage of…” you’re still classifying an entire group of people with a term that is undoubtedly incorrect in more than zero cases. And better than more than zero it’s even fair to say a “lot” or even “millions.” Wrong. If a person is here unlawfully, then they are an illegal, if non-criminal, immigrant. Explain how that’s factually incorrect. > [@](#): > > Of course it can. What percentage of the population was black when “colored” became a slur or Asian when “oriental” did. What percentage of the population is gay, Irish, or Japanese? Why would you think that if a group makes up only a small percentage of a population that alone would be a justifiable reason for not respecting their sensibilities? Because it takes a majority to agree to shift perception. It has nothing to do with the size of the population described; ot has to do with the size of the population using the language. You want to take a minority view and transform it into a majority one by insisting and shaming. “Decent people don’t use ‘illegal immigrant’ as a term,” you insist. I don’t concede you get to define decency for the country. Neither does the country. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2017, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-on-immigration-are-the-most-vicious-people-on-earth/784828/148 "2017-04-23T03:53:28Z")
So by your way of thinking it isn’t a slur to use the terms homo or wetback either. Because after all technically a gay person is homosexual, and it shouldn’t matter if the term has been used pejoratively to the point that gays are offended by it since they are just a minority anyway. And out of all the undocumented immigrants in the united states surely at least some of them literally got their backs wet swimming across a river. Your arguments on this subject have become patently absurd instead of the mere ignorant drivel they were a few posts ago. Good luck with your continued use of a slur until the social shift toward seeing it as unacceptable in all circles makes it clearer to those who don’t realize that you’re just using it to be a dick. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2017, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-on-immigration-are-the-most-vicious-people-on-earth/784828/149 "2017-04-23T04:04:29Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > So by your way of thinking it isn’t a slur to use the terms homo or wetback either. Because after all technically a gay person is homosexual, and it shouldn’t matter if the term has been used pejoratively to the point that gays are offended by it since they are just a minority anyway. And out of all the undocumented immigrants in the united states surely at least some of them literally got their backs wet swimming across a river. I didn’t say that – you have done valiant battle against, and defeated, a strawman. Notice the difference here between “illegal immigrant,” which is undeniably true and accurate for every immigrant here illegally – and “wetback,” which is not. “Homo,” is not an accurate word so much as it’s a prefix for a number of words, but standing on its own cannot be defended as accurate. But “homosexual,” is an accurate word, and while it’s rather dispassionately clinical, I don’t agree it’s a slur. Notice how my responses address your actual claims, and yours require that you make up things? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2017, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-on-immigration-are-the-most-vicious-people-on-earth/784828/150 "2017-04-23T04:10:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Wrong. > > If a person is here unlawfully, then they are an illegal, if non-criminal, immigrant. > > Explain how that’s factually incorrect. The point is still missed, that is for the courts to decide, not someone that decides (for example) in a parking lot that it should be OK to raise a mob against someone that the one using the slur ends it up directing it to a legal resident or citizen also. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2017, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-on-immigration-are-the-most-vicious-people-on-earth/784828/151 "2017-04-23T04:15:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Notice the difference here between “illegal immigrant,” which is undeniably true and accurate for every immigrant here illegally… No it isn’t. Not by the intended use of the word illegal as an attempt to imply a violation of a criminal law. We’ve come full circle. And you’ll be wrong at the end again no matter how many times we go around it. ---
**Author:** ![Beren\_Erchamion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/90ced4/32.png) [@Beren\_Erchamion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beren_Erchamion)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2017, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-on-immigration-are-the-most-vicious-people-on-earth/784828/152 "2017-04-23T04:20:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What’s the authority for this claim? Basic moral decency–something you appear to have a _massive_ problem with. You really need to fix that. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2017, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-on-immigration-are-the-most-vicious-people-on-earth/784828/153 "2017-04-23T05:13:22Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > I eagerly anticipate seeing your posts peppered with “spics” and “wops” and “niggers” and “kikes” and “micks” and “chinks” and “gooks”. That’s a bizarre anticipation. And now I’m triggered from seeing such a concentration of hate speech. Actually, I’m not triggered. Because they are just words. Words I’ve heard in music, read in books, and seen in movies for decades. Not phased one bit. Just because those words don’t bother me doesn’t mean I’m going to go out of my way to use them if such usage is counterproductive. But I’m also not going to correct my former, older black neighbors who uses the word “colored.” They must not have gotten the memo from PC Weekly. Even in the Pit you have to have noticed that I don’t even use much profanity. It’s unnecessary for what I want to say to be free with vulgarities. But anyways back to your so-called logic. It’s a huge fallacy to come to the conclusion that because I support freedom of speech that I personally engage in every possible permutation of speech. I support freedom of religion even if I think many aspects of religion are straight up retarded. Doesn’t mean I’m not going to eat a pork chop just because some random fool thinks doing so is a ticket to Hell. > [@Crazyhorse](#): > > So by your way of thinking it isn’t a slur to use the terms homo or wetback either. Because after all technically a gay person is homosexual, and it shouldn’t matter if the term has been used pejoratively to the point that gays are offended by it since they are just a minority anyway. And out of all the undocumented immigrants in the united states surely at least some of them literally got their backs wet swimming across a river. > > Your arguments on this subject have become patently absurd instead of the mere ignorant drivel they were a few posts ago. Good luck with your continued use of a slur until the social shift toward seeing it as unacceptable in all circles makes it clearer to those who don’t realize that you’re just using it to be a dick. Since when is homosexual a slur? Or is it just the shortened version? And by that logic why isn’t Jew a slur? > [@Beren\_Erchamion](#): > > Basic moral decency–something you appear to have a _massive_ problem with. You really need to fix that. What are your moral axioms you are deriving the stance that the US should have open borders and unlimited immigration? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2017, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-on-immigration-are-the-most-vicious-people-on-earth/784828/154 "2017-04-23T11:27:24Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The point is still missed, that is for the courts to decide, not someone that decides (for example) in a parking lot that it should be OK to raise a mob against someone that the one using the slur ends it up directing it to a legal resident or citizen also. Another strawman defeated. I’m not arguing that it’s accurate to choose an individual in a parking lot and call that person an illegal immigrant. I’m arguing that, in aggregate, it is appropriate to use the words “illegal immigrants,” to refer to the class of persons that are present in the country without either being a U.S. citizen or having a lawful immigration or non-immigration status. It’s also appropriate to refer to an individual as an illegal immigrant if that particular person is present in the country without either being a U.S. citizen or having a lawful immigration or non-immigration status. OK? Do you understand? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2017, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-on-immigration-are-the-most-vicious-people-on-earth/784828/155 "2017-04-23T11:29:31Z")
> [@Beren\_Erchamion](#): > > Basic moral decency–something you appear to have a _massive_ problem with. You really need to fix that. And who anointed you as the authority on decency? Why should I accept your decision on the matter? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2017, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-on-immigration-are-the-most-vicious-people-on-earth/784828/156 "2017-04-23T11:42:39Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > No it isn’t. Not by the intended use of the word illegal as an attempt to imply a violation of a criminal law. We’ve come full circle. And you’ll be wrong at the end again no matter how many times we go around it. Sorry, I’m going to short circuit it this time: I don’t agree that “illegal,” implies a crime. We speak confidently about “illegal waste disposal,” when we’re discussing civil violations of EPA regulations. Trump’s lease of the Old Post Office Pavilion was said to be “illegal,” when discussing the argument that the lease forbid any party leasing the property from being a federal official. None of those are crimes; all of them are common uses of the term. In fact, in recent discussions of United Airlines’ actions, there was little hesitation to call them the “illegal” removal of a boarded passenger when the issue was a civil breach of the Code of Federal Regulations, and it seems to me you took the opposite position when arguing with **manson1972** : he insisted that “illegal” should mean crime, and you argued that civil breaches also counted. Am I mistaken? In [this post, for example](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20139614&postcount=1253), **manson1972** spams a litany of “That does not make something illegal,” in arguing that “illegal” should be synonymous with criminal, and you dispute his approach. Well? ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2017, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-on-immigration-are-the-most-vicious-people-on-earth/784828/157 "2017-04-23T14:00:12Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > There are people like myself, who see empty shuffleboard decks, and giant suites for small families, and say “We can fit more on here, we should bring them on board. Not only is it humanitarian to save as many as possible, it will actually be good for us, as we get more hands to help maintain and improve the ship.” And no one objects to that, as long as bringing people on board is done legally. In other words, they come up the gangplank with a ticket rather than climbing up the anchor chain and stowing away. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2017, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-on-immigration-are-the-most-vicious-people-on-earth/784828/158 "2017-04-23T15:07:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Another strawman defeated. > > I’m not arguing that it’s accurate to choose an individual in a parking lot and call that person an illegal immigrant. > > I’m arguing that, in aggregate, it is appropriate to use the words “illegal immigrants,” to refer to the class of persons that are present in the country without either being a U.S. citizen or having a lawful immigration or non-immigration status. > > It’s also appropriate to refer to an individual as an illegal immigrant if that particular person is present in the country without either being a U.S. citizen or having a lawful immigration or non-immigration status. > > OK? Do you understand? Do you understand that I was referring to the ones on your chosen tribe that do use it against an individual when there is no finding of their legal status? Indeed I was not saying that you did, so I was the one doing the defeat of your straw man. And you do not read what I cite, you useless straw man builder, the AP cite did say that “use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant.” My point was indeed about what is happening to many immigrants, regardless of status. If you are still rolling on the hay, what I’m saying also is that as a class it can be used, but it does become a slur at the personal level. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2017, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-on-immigration-are-the-most-vicious-people-on-earth/784828/159 "2017-04-23T15:31:56Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Really, the point is that referring to someone explicitly and only upon their immigration status (especially when many of the bigots using these words don’t bother to check their immigration status, and label anyone of hispanic descent as an “illegal”, even if they have longer family roots in the US than the bigot), is denigrating at best, and the only reason to do so is to further marginalize an already put upon population. > > They could also be a mother or father, sister or brother, son or daughter, why don’t you use those labels, as they are more accurate than a blanket term like “illegal” or “criminal”. I’m not at all sure where “illegal immigrant” or “illegal” fall on the “black”/“colored person”/“darkie”/“coon”/“nigger” scale, but the above argument is just silly, because it could be used any time anyone uses any noun to refer to people. If I call someone a “painter”, or “murderer”, or “Jew” or “genius”, or any number of other words, that doesn’t acknowledge whether they’re a mother or father, sister or brother. So? Presumably, in the context of that discussion, the important question is whether they can paint things, or have committed murder, or are Jewish, etc. Similarly, it’s entirely reasonable (and in fact, at times necessary) to say things like “with the total number of illegal immigrants residing in Peoria rising from 10,000 in 1994 to 15,000 in 1997, some statistic measured by some blah blah blah”. That’s a discussion of illegal immigrants, and in the context of that discussion, the important quality distinguishing illegal immigrants from others is that they’re illegal immigrants. And while using language to divide people into groups is what bigots and racists do, it’s also what EVERYONE does all the time. It’s very very hard to talk about people at all without making distinctions that don’t specifically acknowledge “oh, and also, all the people I just put into a group are also fathers and mothers and sisters and brothers”… Now, it’s possible that “illegal immigrant” has become too offensive to use. But if so, that’s just because it’s used in individually offensive contexts, not because it somehow denies that people are mothers or fathers. ALL words do that, which means that NO words do that (with very few generally contrived exceptions). As for “illegal”, while I can certainly believe it used sneeringly in some contexts, I can imagine using it as purely a conversational abbreviation when illegal immigration is already being discussed. And again, my position is that it might be offensive because it’s used offensively frequently. But that’s not something inherent in the “dehumanizing” quality of the word, that’s just based on usage. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2017, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-on-immigration-are-the-most-vicious-people-on-earth/784828/160 "2017-04-23T17:12:52Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > If I call someone a “painter”, or “murderer”, or “Jew” or “genius” Do you know who else was called all four of those? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-on-immigration-are-the-most-vicious-people-on-earth/784828.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-on-immigration-are-the-most-vicious-people-on-earth/784828.md?page=9)