Exactly! As an American Bison, I say kick them all out! 
This clip is what instantly came to mind when you posted.
Adjudged illegal by what tribunal? They stand accused of being illegal by you and your racist friends. That does not mean they are in fact committing any illegal acts. Some people do in fact commit illegal acts, but that is insufficient to brand a people who might be legal as illegal just because you get your jollies from an un-American presumption of guilt based on race.
These arguments are idiotic. Nobody is attacking the individual people, just their actions and the facts of their living situation as it stands now. Of course people are discriminated against because of where they were born. Everyone is including you and me. If you don’t believe, hop on a plane a head to France or Australia or Japan and tell them at Customs that you have just decided to stay there for the rest of your life. That is a product of having sovereign countries. If you don’t believe in having those at all either, that is a valid view but it does insist that you broaden the scope of your argument away from semantics and focus more on the practicalities on how we can get to this One World Government with fully open borders.
The OP didn’t mention race, numbnuts. Nobody did, in fact, except a couple of posters looking to score cheapshots.
I agree with you to a point which is why I suggested “illegal worker”. I’m mostly ok with “illegal immigrant” as well.
This is where the party ends.
Preach it Brother Bison.
Obviously, you don’t live in an area where illegal aliens are a major problem.
How about we call them “Retroactive natives”?
No, that’s what we call them after we amnesty them.
The thing is, we don’t usually refer to a person violating the law as “illegal.” We don’t have illegal drivers speeding, illegal taxpayers not filing, illegal managers violating labor laws or illegal chefs not following health codes.
okay, I’ll bite. Where are illegal aliens a major problem? (and by “problem,” I mean a situation that would not be solved if they were granted amnesty)
Or just an “alien” based on the definition.
- A foreign-born resident who has not been naturalized and is still a subject or citizen of a foreign country; broadly : a foreign-born citizen. *
Calling them “illegal” doesn’t really make sense when you break it down. It’s like saying “she’s an illegal French woman”. If you want to be all pedantic, a cumbersome term like “undocumented illegal alien worker” should be used. But English is a language where words and phrases can be used as short hand and we have words and phrases to substitute for other words and phrases so we don’t have to constantly repeat the same words and phrases.
You know a lot of those words are synonyms in this context. Its not like pro-choice activists trying to call pro-life folks “anti-choice” when theya re actually anti-abortion, or pro-life activists calling pro-choice activists “pro-abortion” when they are actually pro-choice.
Undocumented and unauthorized are just as accurate as illegal. If these other terms don’t seem accurate for you its only because you want everyone to see the issue exactly the same way you do.
Emphasis added. I suspect that the vast majority would prefer to live legally, earn money, and send it back to Mexico. The fact that they can’t do it that way is not indicative of their desire.
Hence the whole “seasonal worker” stuff in most of the current immigration reform packages.
I think ‘unauthorized’ is a fine term to use in this situation as well. It explains the situation nicely so, if that term makes someone happy, knock yourself out. ‘Undocumented’ is not a good term in my opinion. It suggests that the problem only lies with the documentation itself and that isn’t true. Documentation is only to provide proof of a legal status in this case and the legal status itself is unaffected whether they have some sort of documents or not. You have to make a change to their legal status to have any real meaning.
California, Texas, and Arizona for starters. You can’t tell me you didn’t know that already.
Once again, the requirement you put on it has little relevance to the actual problem. Amnesty would only impact those that are already here and (presumably) productive members of society already. The problem with illegal immigration would still exist even if you granted blanket amnesty to all such people today. What you seem want to want is some sort of open borders but you are either too dense to realize that or too scared to actually say it directly.
That is the thing that pisses me off about this argument. People want to fight tooth and nail over semantic issues rather than dealing with the actual long-term problem at hand.
Well, here’s an example of where illegal aliens are a problem:
In New York City, affluent mothers hire child care workers (“nannies”) who are, by and large, illegal, undocumented, whatever you want to call them, and don’t pay workers’ comp or FICA or offer health insurance or paid time off or any of the benefits legal , . This has depressed wages to the point where a person wishing to do this work cannot negotiate for any benefits at all, not even the ones they are legally entitled to (FICA, workers’ comp). I don’t know how amnesty would affect the situation, except that I’m betting that these employers don’t want amnesty, because it would cost them money.
A great number of these employers would identify themselves as progressive people, always on the side of the poor and downtrodden. I guess buying fair-trade coffee balances things out enough so that you can screw your employees.
Well, granted I don’t live in California, Texas or Arizona. So, maybe that’s why I don’t see the problem. Or I’m too dense. If the people already here are productive members of society, what is it that’s so bad about the situation?