You’re such a dork.
Then why don’t they do something about it?
Clothahump wrote: “Wow. Wanting to have our immigration laws enforced and not wanting people to be rewarded for breaking the law makes us “incredibly vile” people that you “wish ill upon”?”
No, Clothahump. The OP clearly stated that it is not their desire to have the law enforced that makes them incredibly vile people, but the manner in which that desire is voiced.
You might regard this as a trivial distinction, but it is a real one nonetheless. Some of us do miss the days when even ugly thoughts had to be expressed in civil language.
Slurs become slurs because bigots latch on to them and use them disparagingly in order to a dehumanize the targets of their hatred.
It’s not the left’s fault for pointing this out, it’s not the target’s fault for being targeted, if you want to blame someone for words becoming offensive, place the blame where it belongs; blame the bigots.
There are quite a number of criminals. We’ve got speeders, we’ve got jaywalkers, we’ve got people who cheat on their taxes (did you [royal you]honestly declare your usage tax?), we’ve got employers who violate labor laws, and so on. Those are all criminals too. If we use up the word criminal to refer to undocumented immigrants, how will we distinguish between them?
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 liken it to the USA being a big life boat, a big fancy lifeboat with many custom bells and whistles.
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.”
There are others who see that the ship is full, in that all the space has been spoken for, even if many of those are not actually needing or using most of the space they claim, and say, “We’d like to do more, but unfortunately, we cannot take on any more without suffering ourselves.” I disagree with this view, but at least I can understand it.
Then we have the third group, the group that the OP is complaining about, that simply enjoys throwing people overboard and watching them drown.
The desire to enforce immigration law is not an ugly thought. It’s Orwellian doublethink to dehumanize and wish harm upon those who want their nation’s laws to be enforced while pandering to those breaking the law. What’s the real motivation?
You get that he is specifically talking about people reveling in the idea of kicking out the undocumented immigrants, while at the same time, disparaging other legal immigrants and citizens because of their bigotry?
If you want to defend bigots, they’s fine, have at, but make no mistake that that is exactly what you are doing. You are not defending some noble purpose, or defending the nation’s laws, you are defending people who get enjoyment out of the suffering of others.
k9bfriender made a very good reply to this, and I have to add that you really are not grossly missing a very important point that Orwell was talking about in his 1984 novel.
The point of E-DUB is not only about keeping in mind basic human rights, but that we should never forget to be human or humanitarians.
One main point of Orwell’s book is about the crucial importance of remaining human. Of course, it is no wonder that a cephalopod like you would not get it. 
And it is really bad to see many conservatives fall for real double speak nowadays, and not only about immigration issues.
I’m sympathetic to economic migrants. Or those fleeing terribly unsafe conditions. I’m sympathetic to those who have justified concerns about maintaining borders and the nature of their country.
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 do not disagree, but you need to talk to the bigots about that. They are the ones who pervert perfectly good words in an attempt to denigrate and marginalize others. The targets of their hate are not at fault, and I do not believe that those who stand up for the targets of bigots hatred are at fault either.
Once you hear a word used sneeringly to refer to a group of people, that word has started its way down a path of becoming a slur. Don’t use words to harm people, and we can keep having nice words.
I am not sure that you know what orwellian means. Orwell posited a world where the state decided what language was right and wrong, you are concerned about people asking not to be ridiculed by bigots.
I don’t care how others use words. That’s irrelevant to me. Call a woman a bitch because you are truly sexist or misogynistic? Ok. That’s rude. Meredith Brooks writes a song called “Bitch.” Alright then. Either way, it doesn’t impact my usage at all.
Harmed by words? This isn’t kindergarten where mommy needs to tell you that sticks and stones are the danger not the words. A thicker skin and not being the language or more accurately the thought police would do wonders.
Well, if you do not think that words have any power, not only are you wrong, I don’t understand why you are on a message board.
Is this something that you actually do not get? That dehumanizing people not only hurts their feelings, but it also makes it easier for various types of oppression, up to and including fatal levels of violence to be perpetuated upon them?
They have power but I’m orders of magnitude more greatly concerned with either mob rule or elite rule determining what acceptable language or thought is. I’d much rather see “Songs of the South” for sale and all the harm that that does than have “society” say it’s forbidden.
I don’t get why you and others like the dumb Howard Dean don’t understand that freedom of speech is needed precisely for controversial language or topics. Not that I think enforcing immigration law is controversial.
Controlling thought and language has one main goal. Making it difficult to argue policy.
I am more concerned about mob rule, using denigrating words to dehumanize their opposition, and from that dehumanization oppress, often times violently, vulnerable populations.
We have many examples of that in our past.
I get that you would like to buy a copy of song’s of the south, but the reason it is not for sale is not because of a law or anything, it is because disney decided that it did not represent the types of values that disney wished to represent. What you are wanting is to force a corporation to sell something, that’s not freedom of speech.
This board has some level of control over speech, higher in the other forums, we have plenty of discussion of controversial topics. We don’t need to be throwing around slurs in GQ, GD, or even IMHO to have fairly productive conversations. In fact, I would think that throwing around such language would have the effect of derailing a productive conversation.
So, the only reason why you shouldn’t say “nigger” is to make it more difficult to argue policy?
Well, recently there was a report on NPR about how in Maine the population is getting older and the younger ones leaving, with immigrants actually helping to keep things going (as they also pay taxes, wouldn’t you know…)
But the point here is that one Hispanic immigrant that already had a green card and was a legal resident for years got confronted in a parking lot by a middle age non-minority with lines like “go back to your country” and being here illegally.
The intension was clear, not only to intimidate what he expected was an undocumented immigrant, but that was done with he hope of having others join him, and not just with taunts. Mobs do not start just with actions, they mostly start with words.
Trying to cross the border without valid entry papers is a misdemeanor. If someone makes it without being caught and is simply present in the US after that horrible crime spree, they are no longer in violation of any criminal laws at all.
Beyond that about half of all “illegal immigrants” entered with a legal visa in the first place. They let it expire or otherwise overstayed for a variety of reasons. That is not a crime, not even a misdemeanor.
So right off the bat half of “illegal immigrants” have not committed any crime at all. And among the other half those who did commit a misdemeanor crime by entering illegally, they are as ‘illegal’ as any citizen who one time in their lives committed any misdemeanor. As a distinguished attorney I’m sure you’re aware that misdemeanor crimes are considered “petty” or “minor” crimes that rarely result in the loss of civil liberties and are usually resolved by paying a small fine or serving probation.
So forget those misdemeanor “criminals” - half of unauthorized immigrants don’t even rise to the level of that one-time criminal behavior which is on par with such atrocities as public intoxication, disorderly conduct, or petty theft.
It’s not my job to educate you. I really don’t care if you want to sound like a bigoted douchebag in your choice of terminology. Feel free. A growing majority of people will consider you to be either a bigoted douche or at the least someone who just doesn’t know any better. But we know that you know better. And that you prefer the term because it is inflammatory and insulting to many millions of people - not because it is the best or even an accurate term to use.
I’m well aware of the distinction.
But as I pointed out to you, once you are not lawfully present in the United States, there are often things that you cannot legally do, like work. So I’m suggesting that although there may be half (and I’m still waiting for a cite on the claim that the figure is “half”) the population of illegal immigrants committed no crime by their arrival, they are likely to be committing other crimes in order to support themselves given their lack of legal status, and this likelihood sharply decreases the percentage of illegal immigrants that are not criminals in some other way.
In my state, the maximum penalty for a misdemeanor is a year in jail and a $2,500 fine. The penalty for misdemeanors varies according to the misdemeanor. So misdemeanors are petty crimes, yes, but still crimes. And since we’re talking about whether they are crimes, this seems to support my case.
And again, cite for the “half” claim?
Or on par with domestic violence, assault and battery, driving under the influence, or sexual battery by a guard against an inmate. All of which are also misdemeanors.
Obviously I disagree – I contend “illegal immigrant” is absolutely more accurate than “undocumented immigrant” or “undocumented migrant.”
You just typed it. Did the world end? Did ladies swoon? Did snowflakes melt? Was Trigglypuff triggered?
The whole idea of controlling language, “slurs” or otherwise, is that labeling things slurs and attacking the speaker or writer to discredit an idea is a common practice. Welfare reform? Well that’s racist! And if you are saying racist things nothing you say should be taken seriously. That’s how many on the left “debate.”
So I have zero desire to see speech controlled.
Btw, Disney still sells Songs of the South. It’s just not worth their energy to deal with sensitive mobs in the USA. And about forcing a company to provide a service? Of course the state can and does compel private companies to create content.
I’m sure there are still plenty of people living who also think it’s a damned shame that a man can’t call a spade a spade by using terms like nigger or kike without being judged by an overly liberal society.
Neither you nor I can control the progress of the English language. All arguments aside about the legality or lack of criminality among the immigrant population, the fact is that the term has become offensive to many, and that number is growing while the number of die hard clingers to the use of the term are shrinking. That is just a fact that no semantic arguments can undermine.
As I already mentioned “oriental” and “colored” are both terms that within my lifetime have been considered totally acceptable and non-offensive. A great deal of people especially in the south who were educated, decent people used ‘colored’ as a non-offensive alternative to nigger. Over time that term became offensive to many. You can argue that a black person could be literally described as ‘colored’ or that there is no inherent insult intended in the term colored, but nevertheless the term has fallen out of favor in the English speaking world and people persisting in using it are considered to be using it to be deliberately offensive or at best displaying their ignorance of the changing language.
That is the case whether you like it or not and whether you have any legal basis for considering the activity to be criminal. The term has become offensive despite any such rationale. As I said in a previous post you are swimming upstream on this. The term is going by the wayside whether you agree with the reasons or not.
As far as cites that half of undocumented immigrants arrived here legally just do a freaking google search man, it isn’t secret information.
Here the ACLU cites 45% of all unauthorized immigrants entered the country legally.
Here is a cite from the National Review putting the estimate at 60%:
Here is a news story citing information from theCenter for Migration Studies that places the number at 66%:
As to your attempt to infer illegal activity based on laws about unauthorized immigrants seeking jobs, as far as I know working as an unauthorized immigrant isn’t a crime either. Using forged papers or other fraudulent documents to obtain work is illegal but not just working for a daily wage. It may be illegal for an employer to hire an unauthorized immigrant but not for the immigrant to simply work for them.
Even if I and the many cites I find with a rudimentary google search on this question are incorrect, you as a lawyer surely understand that you can’t assume someone is illegally working based simply on their civil immigration status. Maybe they came with their own money. Maybe they found a bag of money on the ground. You of all people should recognize that inferring illegal activity without any actual evidence wouldn’t hold up in a trial.
All immigrants, authorized or not, are protected by constitutional rights and labor laws including:
And you are right, I am not afraid of words either. We can use any words we choose in a discussion. Using those words in a discussion as to when those words is appropriate, for example, is a time when using those words is appropriate.
Using pejorative words to refer to people, however, is pretty much always going to be a slur. And if you use an innocuous word in the same way in which you would use a slur, then it becomes a slur itself, not through the fault of those it is directed towards, but the fault of those who use it in a pejorative and dehumanizing way.
Especially when you have a situation where people are referred to incorrectly using a pejorative like “illegal”, in that there are many legal residents and citizens who have the term used at them by bigots. As it is not an accurate term at all to be used in these situations, it can only be concluded that it is used as a slur in at attempt to dehumanize an entire demographic.
So, while words themselves are not dangerous, the way in which they are used, and the context in which they are applied, very much can be.
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:
You appear to have confused a statement about what the trend is in recent years with a statement about the total current population.
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.
Because 8 USC § 1324a means that an employer hiring someone without proof of legal right to work is committing a crime, we can certainly offer the inference that some overstayed immigrants get jobs by using false documents. Right? § 1324 prohibits harboring aliens. 42 USC § 408 criminalizes any false use of a social security number. Tendering any false or fraudulent federal document to an employer is a crime under 18 USC § 1028. Driving a car without a valid license is a state crime; using false documents to obtain a license is a state and federal crime. Only 12 states allow the issuance of drivers’ licenses without proof of lawful presence.
Must I really go on?