If someone, by virtue of the circumstances of their parents’ (or grandparents’, etc) arrival in this country, is deprived of a right that you possess, yes, that’s being punished.
And, by the way, are you not a descendant of migrants? I know I am.
If the only reason a person otherwise qualified to receive payments is not receiving payments is because of something his/her parent(s) or grandparent(s) did yes, that is being punished. It is unjust.
Please keep in mind that people who aspire to human decency do not use “illegal” as a noun.
Also that people who bear the proud title of Doper are held to a higher standard than most.
Please keep in mind that you’re wrong.
Can you explain what you mean by “transfer payments”?
Pretty darn heavy penalties for assisting in a misdemeanor.
You’re acting delusional here. First off, I am not authorized or even capable of determining whether someone is legally present in this country or not. And if someone is dying of starvation or thirst, I would have to be a sociopath to even think about those things.
Second, there is no moral or legal obligation to report everyone you suspect may be breaking the law. I am not ICE. It is their job to find these people. I am not morally required to in any way to help them.
Third, the only people who are pushing “illegals” as a problem are the fascistic right that wants to blame problems on them. Immigration, legal or not, only helps our country. There’s a reason not even Ronald Reagan, patron of modern conservatives, was for kicking them out. He gave them amnesty. He championed worker visas.
Even if these people were somehow the enemy, offering your enemy food and water is the right thing to do. Only a sociopath worries about allegiances when it comes to helping the sick and dying.
Hell, THAT’S THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS THREAD. If you can’t figure that out, then you need to shut up about morality, as you have the same morality as Trump.
And do, for the love of all that is good, shut off the Fox News and letting you brain be reprogrammed. You never used to act like this.
Not to beat a dead horse, but the link says the prosecution’s position is that they were not dying of starvation or thirst.
My whole point, and some seems to have missed it, is that the matter not nearly as black and white as made out in the OP.
The term is listed as derogatory in any dictionary. It is deliberately dehumanizing, by removing any indication the individuals references are human. That is why it was coined.
And this is being directed towards people who are merely doing what they feel they need to survive, and have harmed no one. (No, not even our economy, since they actually help keep it functioning. Since they can’t take in any services, they are only a net gain.)
It is punching down, at people worse off than the people who say it, and who haven’t in any way harmed them.
Decent people don’t do that. Decent people don’t come in and try to figure out a way the guy giving aid to the dying was actually the bad guy.
And decent people don’t come in and defend those people, either.
In any dictionary? Really?
Are you putting, like, any work at all into this? Right there in the first sentence, you’re already staking out an “in any dictionary” position — as if your go-to move, when trying to get taken seriously, is to lead off with that?
No. I specifically quoted what you said. You argued that the guy could not be moral because he gave food and drink to suspected illegal immigrants, but did not call ICE on them. You even went on a rant about how horrible “illegals” are, using a slur to attack them.
You may want to pretend you didn’t say that garbage I quoted (and an additional post where you added more garbage). But you did say it, and it completely recolors everything.
We now know your true motivation was the hatred of “illegals,” and not anything about the law. Same as when someone talks about women “asking for it” after saying that the accused rapist is “innocent until proven guilty.”
You can’t go back to that neutral stance once you reveal your true nature.
Sorry man, but I don’t see where he ranted about how horrible “illegals” are. Can you point it out?
Oh, but our good friend Typo Negative can tell just by looking at them. Shit, if a brown guy speaking Spanish asks for money to go buy a bottle of water within 200 miles of the Mexican border, you should know that he’s probably an “illegal” and not a human. :rolleyes:
Typo Negative…tests Cunt-o positive.
I don’t think it’s fair to judge all of the children of immigrants by the moral failings of Donald Trump.
I see you have conveniently ignored the rest of my post. Only a moron would rebut only the weakest argument if he could rebut all of them, so, unless you are a moron, I know you can’t rebut the rest of my post.
You also didn’t actually refute my claim. Asking whether I put “work” into something doesn’t refute anything I said. Of course I’m not going to spend much time on it. I googled the term, saw that the results I got all referred to them as derogatory, and moved on.
You are of course aware that it is a derogatory term. That is why you play this game. That is also the reason you don’t actually defend or repudiated what your fellow conservative on this matter said.
I just googled some dictionaries. All of them I’ve looked at so far list “person in a country illegally” as an alternate definition of the term, and ALL of them I’ve looked at so far note that the term is derogatory. There might be some dictionaries out there that don’t make that notation (actually, I have a tree-book dictionary from 1978 that does not have that alternate definition) but for anything post 2010 and/or on line it would seem that yes, **BigT **and others have the right of it.
The first sentence was so silly that it seemed ridiculous to give you the benefit of the doubt as to — well, anything that followed, really.
Then say that. Just say the first two or three results you got referred to it that way. Heck, maybe do your absolutist bit of saying any ‘decent’ dictionary would refer to it that way. Or anything like that, instead of leading off with the laughable.
Why get it wrong right at the start? How does that make any sense to you?
I just checked three online dictionaries, one of which is Merriam-Webster. Yep, they all agree illegal as a noun is derogatory.
Besides behing dehumanizing, the term is a way to use negative language to generate hate against a particular group far out of proportion to their supposed crime. Those who use it to generate such hatred are manipulating other people. Try some critical thinking, TOWP.
And if I find one that doesn’t so classify it? Two? Three?
Near as I can tell, the original assertion is wrong at “one” — but since I honestly have no idea how anyone could get it so wrong in the first place, I honestly don’t know how many cites would be appropriate in the face of so much folly.
What kicked off this whole digression? Someone responding to the use of ‘illegal’ as a noun by declaring that “people who aspire to human decency do not use “illegal” as a noun.” What was that meant to do? Why announce that the poster who just did so lacks human decency and doesn’t even aspire to human decency?
Why, it seems — dehumanizing? Seems like a — manipulative? — assertion that such people, no matter what else they do or say, flatly lack a human quality.
After all, why the heck else put that out there?
I didn’t. I used a figure of speech.
You chose to interpret it literally to give yourself a way out of have to actually counter anything I said. You decided to be dishonest in your argument.
Again, YOU DIDN’T PROVIDE ANY COUNTERARGUMENT. Even after I prodded you to do so with a second post. So it’s clear that you don’t have a counterargument.
And now you’re desperately trying to steer everything away from the one thing you should have done if I was actually wrong.