I do’nt know that I disagree with the term “illeigal immigrant” so much as find it to be not the phrase I would prefer. My issue is with the shortneing of it to “illegal”, as that is less accurate, and more aggressive.
For instance, should a US citizen of hispanic descent be standing on the sidewalk, and a white guy is walking across the road against the light, and I shout out, “Illegal!”, who do you think most people will think I am talking about? How accurate it that?
But, the bigots also use those words against people who are not here illegally, so, it is in fact up to a minority on how a word is used, unfortunately, that minority is more ideologically aligned with your politics and philosophy than mine, so it is more your responsibility to police them than mine, so don’t blame me when words become slurs because your ideological allies make them into slurs.
That was a stupider discussion than you give it credit for. As, I believe I was the first person to use the word illegal in relation to their orders, and the reason that I said that is because I believed, (and still believe) that they were committing the crime of extortion/intimidation (and I don’t want to argue that out here, I really don’t care) upon the guy once they were in the wrong, I argue that illegal definatily impies crime, even if the specific definaition of it does include civil breaches.
And it would be accurate to call people who have dark skin complexions negroes as well, but for some reason, it is accepted by most that that term, while having accuracy, is still used disparagingly enough that it should be avoided in polite conversation.
When we’ve already stowed the gangplank, and there are people in the water drowning, I cannot fault them for doing what they must to survive, and if you manage to convince me that in order for the rest of us to survive, they must go, I will still be very unhappy about having to force those off the ship, unlike the people the OP is talking about, who look forward to dragging people out of the bilge and tossing them overboard to point and laugh while they drown or are eaten by sharks.
‘Homo’ is a slur the same way ‘Hebe’ is a slur. Both are pretty much exclusively used by sneering bigots. Therefore, if someone calls you a homo or a Hebe or a spic or whatnot, you can safely assume that the intended message is not, “Why hello, good sir or ma’am, I happened to notice that you are of the Hebraic/Hispanic/gay persuasion, lovely day today”, but “I consider you a lesser life-form because of the accident of your birth, and you shouldn’t be allowed to ruin the day of an upstanding ____ like myself by visibly existing.” Get it?
You aren’t short circuiting anything, you’re going back full circle again.
It still doesn’t matter how technically accurate you think the term may be. It also doesn’t matter if other uses of the word illegal to describe a civil offense are still perfectly acceptable. This one isn’t anymore. You’re not talking to the guy who made this rule so I don’t know why you’re arguing with me, it is just the fact of reality plain as day right in front of your face.
Once this use of illegal has become recognized primarily as a pejorative slur it will fall completely out of polite use. It is already happening. To a great extent it has already happened.
I’m not trying to tell you what language you should use. But within probably just a few years using that term will be looked at just the same as using colored to describe a black person or homo to describe a gay person. You will be assumed to be being either deliberately offensive or at best demonstrating your ignorance of social mores and current use of the English language.
As I said before, be my guest. You can’t win this argument because you had already lost it before it ever started. You’re beating a dead horse.
It’s all semantics really, where is my cheap housekeeper? I want a 15 year old girl from El Salvador to be a Live-In to show I care. The whole Liberal talking point is about ‘virtue signaling’. ‘It costs me nothing personally to be the enlightened one, you evil cretins.’ As a resident of Arizona, I enjoy the high crime and expensive education bill that accompany those, ‘Yearning to make a buck’.
Once this use of illegal has become recognized primarily as a pejorative slur it will fall completely out of polite use. It is already happening. To a great extent it has already happened.
Are you micro-aggressing on my safe-space? Where is my huggy-pillow? I am tired of fools offering my money to feel good about themselves. Illegal fits because, that is what they are. Illegal Aliens. Cry me a river. Here is some Phil Collins to ease your sorrow.Genesis - Illegal Alien (1983) - YouTube
Don’t care about use/mention. I care only about use.
So “they” and “their” ironclad dictate that colored is bad now is not so ironclad? Hmm.
The same God whose words prevent some people from eating cheeseburgers or ribs? The same God who wants the punishment for certain sexual acts to be death? I don’t see how that’s a convincing argument for open borders.
Even given that it’s a futile exercise, since enough people express offense that the term is going by the wayside out of basic human respect, regardless of the merits of any arguments for or against it, I’m still willing to tell you why you’re wrong about the technical use of the term if you want to argue that you think it is reasonable or sensible anyway.
In all your examples you’re transposing the term to describe an action instead of a person.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
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?
[/quote]
.
By your way of thinking we should be calling all these people “Illegal Waste Technicians”, “Illegal Presidents”, “Illegal Gate Staff”, and “Illegal Police Officers.” Anyone who ever got a speeding ticket would be “Illegal Drivers” and anyone who ever violated any civil code would be “Illegal Citizens.”
As has been the intention of those who have misused the term to the point it is now considered a slur by most decent folk, it criminalizes the person and not the action.
From the National Association of Hispanic Journalists
You’re also wrong about it being a guaranteed status across the entire population of all undocumented immigrants. Unlike all these other examples, an unauthorized immigrant might become an authorized immigrant by simply correcting whatever is wrong with their situation. So unlike traffic violations or illegal waste dumping, being undocumented is not by itself evidence any violation has occurred. It is only evidence that the person needs to see an immigration judge to have their situation evaluated.
From the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund:
Very good effort. But here’s the distinction: the focus is on the illegal waste dumping because it is a discrete offense. That is, the civil offense is complete when the dump occurs. The removal of the airline passenger is illegal, but it ends with the removal.
But the civil offense of unlawful presence is on-going. The illegal immigrant did not merely commit a civil offense the instant he overstayed his visa; he begins a continuous offense: waking, sleeping, eating, and watching TV, be it Doctor Who or El Señor de Los Cielos every night, he continually offends the civil regulation at issue.
Since I have already rejected your authority to define what “decent” folk do or say, the impulse you have to continually throw this accusation into the mix is fascinating. In my opinion, most decent debaters would not stoop to such a tactic.
That quote appears to focus on the use of “illegals,” as opposed to “illegal immigrants.” I have already agreed that “illegal” is not a noun.
To the extent that it’s also an indictment of “illegal immigrant,” then nothing in the quote provides any new argument.
At which time, the offense ends, and they are no longer an illegal immigrant. I am not suggesting that once someone has violated immigration law, we tattoo “24601” across their chest. I am arguing that it’s accurate to refer to someone who is not lawfully present as an illegal immigrant. If the person adjusts his status to one of lawful presence, then he’s no longer an illegal immigrant. The continuing offense has ended.
It’s worth pointing out that sometimes words appear to be becoming offensive, but then they don’t. For instance ,“black”. Twenty years ago, an educated observer would have predicted that “black” was going to go the way of “negro” and “colored person”, to be replaced by “African-American”.
But “black” is just too useful and short and universal, and remains in widespread use among people of all races (presumably, at least partly because “African-American” is way too long for everyday conversation, and also worse-than-useless in many contexts, such as talking about people outside America).
Be that as it may if, say a person had a treehouse in their yard that violated city ordinances, and they continue to have that treehouse in the yard as they wait for their day in court, you might refer to it as an illegal treehouse but you wouldn’t refer to them as “illegal residents” of the city despite the ongoing violation in their yard.
But you’re also mistaken in another way. In some cases absolutely no violation has occurred, ever. Maybe someone came on a student visa and through no fault of their own the school closed, and at that point they are technically here on a visa that doesn’t apply but as soon as an immigration court sees the case they would issue a new visa and instruct the person to enroll in another school. During the interim they would have been an unauthorized immigrant but in no way ever violated any civil code. The people you’re using “illegal immigrant” to describe are all actually “alleged illegal immigrants” or “possible illegal immigrants” until an immigration court has classified them as anything else.
I’m not claiming the authority to define “decent” - you rejected another poster’s authority to define that, but I do retain the right to have my own opinion of what decency means. I’m also not telling you that you need to be decent by my definition of the term or even that you shouldn’t use this slur if you’re so inclined. By saying ‘most decent folk’ I could have as easily said “in polite circles” or “among those who are sensitive the complaints about the term” and I only used it to reference the fact that the term is falling out of polite use because it offends people and there are enough other people who respect their wishes to stop using it. The technical arguments about whether or not it is being used as a slur in any given context are irrelevant to that point.
There again, because people have nounified the word and have used it as a blatant slur the longer form of the term is also considered offensive to many now as it still attempts to indict the person rather than any action. If not ‘decent folk’, then say those who are socially aware and see no harm in not using an offensive term simply because others are offended by it regardless of any arguments for or against it.
Of course not. Their residency in the city is not illegal. I might call them illegal treehouse owners, except that the phrase is awkward and not of general interest. Their foray into illegal treehouse construction doesn’t affect other things they do. But an illegal immigrant is exercising his illegal immigration every moment, awake or asleep.
BWAHAHAHA!!!
Wait, you’re serious?
OK: then you’re wrong, as well as hilarious. 8 CFR § 214.2(f) requires that the student report the closure of the school; as long as they do that they remain “in status” for five months per 214.2(f)(8)(i). There’s nothing illegal about that. If they do not enroll in a new school in five months, they are not permitted to remain in the country, but must exit and re-enter in a new F-1 status.
So what you describe is incorrect. There is a civil code, and he either violates it (“illegal”) or he doesn’t. “Not illegal.”
You’re welcome to define “decent,” in any way you please privately, but notwithstanding your denial above, you did in fact try to define decent for not just yourself but for the community at large. Nor does your attempt to refine it as “in polite circles,” help.
What if I were to say that “in polite circles,” people don’t debate about non-existant fact patterns like student visas “not applying,” and trying to claim that this is somehow both in, and not in, violation of civil code? That would be a pretty transparent tactic on my part, right?
Sorry, still no sale. I am perfectly socially “aware” of what this effort is trying to accomplish. By reframing illegal immigrants as “undocumented migrants,” the intention is to soften the public perception of the issue. People are “offended,” by illegal immigrant because they want the discussion to favor their preferred policy outcomes.
I was just using a hypothetical example without consulting the law books to ensure that one specific example applies. None of my arguments hinge on that example but there are certainly cases where in fact a visa becomes invalid and the person has not violated any law as long as they follow whatever procedure is required to make it valid again.
No you wouldn’t call them illegal treehouse owners either even if it rolled off the tongue with ease. If some business like United Airlines has a continual issue with pulling people off planes illegally you wouldn’t call them an “illegal airline” or their staff “illegal flight attendants.”
Argue as you may it remains that despite any of this peripheral nitpicking, nobody is an illegal immigrant, even if you want to use that term, until an immigration court has decided they violated some immigration law. So anyone who has not appeared in an immigration court and had the myriad of pertinent details examined by an immigration authority can’t be justifiably called illegal by you or any other bigots looking to find any way they can work the term in edgewise to portray the person as a criminal.
If there are, then the person is in an unlawful status until he has corrected the issue. The person HAS violated a law, in other words.
Same response: I wouldn’t because the illegal conduct has a defined beginning and end, while being an illegal immigrant is an on-going offense.
That’s not true either. By definition, a person is an illegal immigrant the moment they violate the law.
You are mistaking the accuracy of the claim as to a particular individual with the accuracy of the term applied to a course of conduct.
No person is a burglar, we might say, until convicted by a court, but it’s still absolutely accurate to say that the crime of burglary happens when a person breaks and enters a dwelling place at night for the purpose of committing a crime therein.
See the difference? I’m describing burglars as those who commit burglary. I’m describing illegal immigrants as those not lawfully present in the United States. I’m not naming a particular person and declaring him an illegal immigrant; that, indeed, os for judicial or administrative resolution.
But it is only individuals who take umbrage at the use of the term and point out that by a certain very vocal minority they, as individuals, are being painted as being criminals and dangers to society when in fact they haven’t committed any crime at all.
I think even you will agree that you simply can’t call their status criminal even if you insist on using illegal to signify not having authorization to be in the country or having their paperwork pending before an immigration court.
But painting them as criminals is the only intention of many who choose to use the term despite all this. Whether you want to call respecting the sensibilities of these millions of individuals ‘decent’ or ‘polite’ or whatever doesn’t really matter. It is still the reason the term is considered a slur by a wider group than only those individuals, and is rapidly falling out of polite use.
Of course. Not calling them criminals. As discussed, “illegal,” does not mean “criminal.”
The very position for which you were strongly vocal in the United thread.
Perhaps it is. Perhaps that trend will slow as more people realize that “illegal immigrant” is a perfectly correct word to use to describe a person not legally present in the country. We can hope. But for now, whatever the trend may be, the usage remains decent, polite, and accurate.
