No, but it is ambiguous. If you were to refer to persons of unknown provenance as criminals, how would you distinguish them from the speeders, the jaywalkers, and unregistered solicitors?
Reminds me of the old joke - “Is he a criminal lawyer?”
“Yes, very.”
Don’t forget to tip your lawn service.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, here one should not ignore history:
Of course, the article points also that most of the usage in news was in favor of using the term thanks to the AP Stylebook, that so that opinion I cited looked like it was just that, **but from 2013 onwards:
**
It’s also inaccurate, inasmuch as approximately half of undocumented immigrants have committed no crime.
After all these years of the internet, chat rooms, message boards, comment sections, etc I still fail to understand why anonymity motivates or somehow “empowers” many people to act out in a way they never otherwise would. I can’t stand it.
Well, technically and eventually the authorities can show that someone did break the rules and overstayed his/her visa for example.
But, the key here is that since there is supposed to be a presumption of innocence by law then the main point is that calling someone an illegal is actually demanding that we should drop that presumption when talking about individuals that many can encounter in America. (And I have seen or read about cases of Hispanics or Asians being accused in public of being illegal -when they are legal residents or even citizens- in an attempt to get others to also forget about the law and to follow their vicious example.)
But that’s not a crime.
Yes, but it remains a civil violation. In any case, I do agree mostly with you.
At least they are protecting the northern border from those damned snowbacks looking to steal American web comic jobs.
I am sorry to offend your relative, but the Democrats did not paint Trump, he freaking painted himself. Anyone who could vote for a man who literally said the deplorable things he was accused of and think that someone else made that up about him is a deluded idiot.
I actually respect the people who say “I know Trump was a deluded moron, but I wanted Republicans in control because I wanted a Supreme Court Justice who was like Scalia”. I respect them, I think they are narrow minded and wrong but at least I respect them. They are willing to do harm to others, put our country at risk and cause damage to our institutions in order to advance their agenda. They are not unique in that regard, but at least they are genuine.
Any person who says to me “I did not realize this about Trump” needs to be called out for what they are, a complete imbecile. An infant with voting privileges.
The fact that he realized his mistake only makes him an infant who realizes that a stove is hot when they touch it. A moron like that though will still touch a heater, or dip their hand into boiling water, and then act just as surprised at the result.
Your relative may not vote for Trump again, but if what you say is true, I guarantee he will vote for the next schill.
So the cite for the claim that it’s a slur is the AP Stylebook?
What if I don’t concede the power of the AP Stylebook to define slurs for the world? Or Charles Garcia’s power in that regard?
Sure.
The US Census ennumerated “colored people,” up until 1900. But that term began to fall out of favor over the next twenty to thirty years; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is not an organization biased against African-Americans, but no one today would think “colored person,” is an acceptable phrase to use.
No, Negro was the enlightened term.
Until it wasn’t.
In 1963, Dr. King’s speech referred to his own race as Negro, but a decade later, that was insensitive; black was . . . er. . . the new black.
And then that, in turn, while not offensive (yet) has been replaced by African-American.
It’s almost as if, no matter how we label people, some will take up that term to use in a denigrating fashion.
It’s not the oppressed’s fault that we can’t have nice words.
To add now, the term “people of color” is being pushed around.
I felt terrible in a meeting for a very nice older woman I supervised who did not have a hateful bone in her body. She was talking about the effects of race on something and she said something to the effect of “we see that black americans have a greater number of…”, someone piped up and said “people of color”.
She stopped and said “excuse me?”. The response, “They are people of color”. She said, “Oh I apologize, colored people are…” The person then erupted into a storm of anger. Woman presenting cried, I called an end to the meeting.
There were calls for her to be fired or disciplined and all she could do in my office was sob saying “she told me to call them colored people”. I said “no, she said people of color” and she replied “what is the difference?”.
I smiled, explained to her how words evolve over time and that context and meaning change with the interpretations of others. She was mortified that she had done something racist and I told her she had done nothing of the sort.
I eventually brokered a peace deal, but words are weird man. They change with the time.
Interesting that you willfully ignored what Lawrence Downes said and that the Jews were not amused when they were subjected to that.
Thanks, I have no issue with using this descriptor if it’s preferred. I think it sounds more clunky but that’s most likely to do with familiarity.
I seem to remember a story, but no cite or details, about a Caucasian woman from South Africa who, when she came to the US, referred to herself as an “African American” and got slapped down for it.
Indeed she should have. It’s “South African America”.
Can you explain your reasoning?
I mean, obviously the mere fact that a legal immigrant overstays a visa is not a crime.
But I’m curious how those individuals are supporting themselves. Are they working? If so, are they working pursuant to a work authorization granted pursuant to an 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(14) deferred action policy?
Or are they working without that type of permission? I ask because a person who is merely in civil violation of immigration regulations by overstaying their visa is nonetheless committing a criminal act if they use false identification to obtain employment, or if they harbor or conceal other illegal immigrants, they are guilty of criminal offenses.
So I don’t quite understand the level of confidence that leads you to claim roughly half have committed no crime. Can you explain?