But — as Banquet Bear just helpfully noted — if I switch from calling them “invaders” to calling them “illegal immigrants”, that’s still the case, right? I still won’t know who millions of them are, and yet the SDMB will presumably still let them be referred to as “illegal immigrants”.
We’ll still be saying that they’re the country illegally, and we’ll still make mention of entering the country illegally, and we’ll still note that illegal immigrants number in the millions; but we’ll still know as much or as little about them in general and their names in particular as we would if calling them “invaders” were also de rigueur.
That’s just it: to the extent that I think they are interchangeable, and to the extent that others think they aren’t — if, say, they’d object to “invaders” in a way they wouldn’t to “illegal immigrants” — then I want to emphasize that, hey, maybe you should rethink that.
When I asked you to show us an example of what the invasion or an invader looks like, you provided us with Francisco Oropeza, a man accused of murdering five of his neighbours.
You’ve been unable or unwilling to provide further examples.
So when Eva states that " typically requires the intent to take the place over by force rather than, say, find an apartment to rent, get a job, live, raise kids, etc", I think you have proven her correct.
When you use invader you aren’t talking about peopling finding an apartment to rent, get a job, live, raise kids, etc. You are talking about murderers and abusers and people looking to take over a “place by force.”
Why?
Why should I suddenly start using the word invader to describe an asylum seeker? Or someone crossing the border for a job?
I would suggest that its you that needs to be rethinking things. Because the OP laid out an extensive case as to why the term should be moderated here. And you haven’t made a case at all. You haven’t even been able to name a single invader outside of a guy accused of murdering 5 people.
I’m talking about both. This is me, right here, telling you that I’m talking about both.
I shouldn’t have to name any of them: not the guy accused of murder, and not a guy who’s looking to rent an apartment. I’m telling you that, if they illegally enter the country, I can in fact consider them invaders regardless of whether they go on to murder anyone, and regardless of what their names are.
If I tell you that someone is trespassing on my property, that can in fact be true if he also vandalizes my home and still true if he doesn’t — just like he can be a trespasser even if he offered me a quarter, and can still be a trespasser even if he didn’t; he can be a trespasser no matter what his name is, and no matter whether he’s also a killer or also a guy who returned a library book a week late. None of the other specifics are relevant, and, frankly, it’d be weird to ask for such details if the question is “wait, is he a trespasser?”
…so you consider an asylum seeker to be an invader?
That an asylum seeker that has entered the country illegally is part of an invasion?
A simple yes or no answer here would suffice.
I mean: you don’t have to now. You have more than demonstrated exactly what it is you think, and made a very good case for why the term invader and invasion should be moderated as hate speech in this particular context.
And that allows you to treat kids taking a shortcut across your lawn the same way you would treat gang members armed with chains and aluminum baseball bats sneaking in your back door, right?
So a family of refugees desperately fleeing a hostile government, gang or government sponsored gang are considered “invaders”?
… individuals that are fleeing persecution from their original country who unlawfully enter the United States through its southwest land border or adjacent coastal borders.
Yes, but are you saying that it would be inaccurate of me to do so? I know I can say it; I know nobody is stopping me; I’m asking whether you think I’d be correct.
But it’s the “asylum seeker” bit that has me wondering: does US law, at present, carve out a special status for them such that they’re here legally while they’re seeking asylum? Are they allowed in — by someone with the authority to allow them in — in a way that other folks who likewise enter the country aren’t? What’s doing all the work in your scenario?
I think that on this message board our standards should be slightly higher than “It is o.k. to insult people as long as, somewhere in the etymological history of a particular word or phrase, one of the definitions could be taken as innocuous’”
Per your quote, unless they can demonstrate an exception to the rule or rebut the presumption, they’re presumed to be ineligible for asylum due to having unlawfully entered the United States, and to that extent I’d in turn presume that they’re invading the country.
But — like America — that’s me making a rebuttable presumption, and so I’m of course open to hearing an argument that they’re not.
…that would be all asylum seekers who unlawfully enter the United States through its southwest land border or adjacent coastal borders. They are presumed to be ineligible for asylum by the government.
All of them, the moment they cross the border, are invading. Are taking part in an invasion. According to you.