This way too vague to have any meaning at all. Doper is a word to describe a group of people. It can describe several groups depending on the context.
But fine, I will concede the point if it will get the discussion back on point. In all future posts I will not use the term, but will type out the full ‘illegal aliens’.
I also pointed out that dictionary was over 40 years old and thus is not current. I’m sure if you looked in a dictionary from, say 1850 the term n***** would not be listed as offensive as it is now, and “negro” would be deemed polite although at best it’s borderline these days.
Hence my reference to “hairsplitting”.
Remember this phrase: “people are not illegal”. In other words, “legal” is an adjective, not a noun. “Illegal aliens” and “people who are here illegally” are both more acceptable that using “illegal” as a noun.
Seat of my pants? Around 40% these days. That’s a wild ass guess, I have no statistics or cites to back it up with, it’s purely opinion.
Again, an OLD dictionary. One that is also missing terms like “microcomputer” and “cellphone” and so on. It’s nowhere near current.
A major difference between felons (and the rest of the folks you mention) and people crossing the international border without following preferred procedures is that the felons have been *tried in a court of law *. People wandering over the border? Who knows? Are they people with legitimate claim to asylum or refugee status? Did they get drunk and wander across the line by accident? (Believe it or not, it IS possible to cross such a border by accident)
That’s why terms like “undocumented” are less inflammatory. It indicates a non-standard entry without passing judgement on it prior to a formal hearing which may or may not bring to light more information. Due process - something we’re all supposed to have in the country.
If I a cite a sufficiently current one — what then? Would one suffice to show BigT was wrong, or will it get handwaved away as some unique outlier until I provide a second? Or will that still not be enough to show BigT’s “any” comment was wrong? What, exactly, would it take to show that BigT was wrong?
That line there about “the rest of the folks you mention” — is that true? Because, to pick just one: the part where I mentioned “trespassers” brings to mind how people sure do seem toss that word around, descriptively or conversationally or whatever, even before the folks in question have been tried in a court of law; the term just gets put out there, unremarkably but doing useful work, every so often, right?
But what if they are documented? What if the — illegal aliens? Is that what we’re to go with, referring to them as both illegal and as aliens, because like the man said it may facilitate discussion and thus be worth the shrug even if I keep seeing it as a distinction without a difference — so, okay, what if the illegal aliens in question happen to be here illegally as a mere matter of documented fact? Isn’t what’s relevant the illegality, regardless of if it happens to be documented?
I think your grasping at straws there. I would be VERY surprised if any English dictionary published in North America in the past 20 years would NOT mention the use of “illegal” as a noun/person to be derogatory.
It’s a very common term, used of the term, and view of that term.
There is a definite legal definition of “trespassing” as well as legal penalties for same. You can be legally convicted of trespassing. Otherwise - well, maybe you are and maybe you aren’t.
The “documents” referred to here are those permitting one to legally enter a country and you damn well know it. It’s not about “documenting a person’s presence” in the US.
A person can legally enter the US for a variety of reasons using a variety of documents to do so - passports, visas, enhanced driver’s license, “green card”, etc. So a person might be allowed to enter on vacation, or allowed to live here but not work here, or allowed to live AND work here, might be here as a legal refugee, might be here without permission or document permitting entry… You can’t tell by looking at someone what their legal status is or isn’t. The vast majority of people are NOT the border police and have no business trying to determine if someone is or isn’t in the US legally.
If you have certain legal documents are a legal immigrant or legal alien. Again, that might be anything from permission to be here on vacation to some sort of visa or permission to live here permanently and work here as well. If you do not posses any such document you are an illegal immigrant or illegal alien. If so, you are SUPPOSED TO get a hearing where you can plead your case. Maybe you were on a boat on Lake Huron and got blown to the wrong side of the border (that actually does happen - also in Lake Superior, the Detroit River, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario…). Maybe you were snowshoeing along the Montana/Canadian border in January and got lost. Maybe you arrived somehow or other from, say, Somalia and claim you face certain death if forced to return… which, if you can substantiate that might get you a claim of asylum in which case, even if you entered the US without permission you will be given permission to stay at which point you move from “illegal immigrant” to “legal immigrant” without penalty, perhaps one day moving to “citizen”. You might enter as a legal refugee.
Or maybe you have no permission to enter at all, snuck in, have no right to be here, maybe you have nefarious ideas of what to do here - but that’s not for the average person in the street to determine, any more than the average person in the street is allowed to sit as a judge in a felony trial.
In other words, there are a variety of legal documents and permissions by which you are allowed to stay in the US. Possession of those is what is meant by “documented”. A hearing in front of judge is how the determination is SUPPOSED TO be made as to whether or not someone has legal permission to be here or not.
So do I and I would bet most dopers appreciate you as well.
I’m not asking whether it would surprise you; I’m asking whether it would show that BigT was wrong. (But, for clarity: would online sources suffice?)
But what I’m asking is: do people make routine and unremarkable use of the term “trespassers” even when describing folks who haven’t been legally convicted of it?
How does that not cut both ways? You say that I can’t tell by looking at someone what their legal status is or isn’t; wouldn’t I likewise have trouble trying to tell by looking at someone what the story is when it comes to documents?
Good call. I have joined your club. I shan’t be seeing TOWP’s nonsense any longer.
And would be an evil person. ICE are the American Brownshirts, and should never under any circumstances be called, aided or respected in any way. When the law is evil, obeying the law is evil. Cooperating with monsters is a monstrous act.
You’re shifting goalposts and you think you’re witty.
No, I don’t actually hear that term very much. Where do you live that you do?
Why the hell are you stopping random people and asking to see their residency/citizenship documents? No, you CAN’T tell by “looking at someone” if they’re here legally or not, or even whether their a citizen or not.
It’s no harder to spot genuine/fake residency documents than genuine/fake driver’s licenses or other forms of ID or Official Government Document. People who hire employees at a company routinely have to ask for ID that proves a person has permission to work in the US. This isn’t rocket science. If anything, the official documents for legal immigrants are more consistent and therefore easier to deal with than what’s commonly used for native born US citizens which is the birth certificate - which varies widely depending on location and when a person was born. I expect at some point they’re going to tell all of us old farts who have actually hung onto our very first iteration of it that our 20th Century version doesn’t meet modern standards and we have to get an updated copy with all sorts of fancy anti-fraud measure in it but that hasn’t happened yet.
How do I know whether a group of random people are “skirting the law” or just some tourists that got lost?
Hell, I wouldn’t even know how to contact ICE myself. I almost asked “are they in the phone book?” but then I remembered we don’t have phone books these days any more than we have rotary dial phones. I do know how to hand someone a sandwich and a bottle of water if they need it, and how to call 911 if emergency aid is required. With most Americans the first action upon encountering someone in distress is “can I help you?” rather than calling ICE. At least for know.
What next, we’re going to ask anyone from south of the border to sew a little green leaf on their shirts?
How about you actually cite one, instead of ranting on and on about how BigT is wrong, even though you refuse to actual prove your point?
So I’ll do it. The vast majority of current dictionaries dealing with the general English language define illegal as a derogatory slur. SMDB Squirrels define you as a ranting, lazy pedant.
No, it’s that I’ve got online ones at the ready, and if they can suffice I’d be glad to cite them; but if that would count as shifting goalposts, then I’d rather find out beforehand and supply a dead-tree cite instead. I’m looking for clarification because I’m looking to avoid a goalpost shift.
Seriously? I just searched it on Google News, and saw “trespassers” get featured prominently but routinely in articles from all over the country — often mundanely getting the idea across right there in the headline, whether it was a story out of Pennsylvania or Minnesota or Virginia or New Mexico or whatever.
That’s not my point. You said “terms like “undocumented” are less inflammatory. It indicates a non-standard entry without passing judgement on it prior to a formal hearing which may or may not bring to light more information.” You add that I “CAN’T tell by “looking at someone” if they’re here legally or not”; my point is, I likewise can’t tell by “looking at someone” if they’re undocumented or not.
::shrugs:: Okay, let’s start with one.
[googles]
How about Macmillan? Their online dictionary, which of course labels a number of other words as “offensive”, mentions nothing of the sort when indicating that this noun means an illegal immigrant.
So take it up with BigT, who should’ve done what you just did by sensibly referring to “the vast majority of current dictionaries” or some such instead of just leading off with an “any”. I’m not saying I dispute your sensible remark here; why didn’t you sensibly dispute BigT’s remark there?
Merriam Webster calls it “sometimes disparaging and offensive”. If you want to hang your hat on “not all dictionaries call it offensive all the time”, then feel free. But it’s a slur the way you’re using it, and there are non-slur ways to say the same thing. Using it knowing this just means that you’re okay with using (and rationalizing) ethnic slurs.
I’ve had the exact same conversation with people about “wetback” and worse racial slurs. Some people just really, really want to use ethnic/racial slurs, and will search for any justification they can scrabble for. I’m not sure why you’d want to join their ranks, but you are free to do so.
Why throw in “ethnic” at the end? You’re already railing against me for what you say is a slur — and without a word of criticism for BigT for inaccurately hanging a hat on dictionaries in the first place — and you have to add in the bit about “ethnic”, too? If I do wind up shrugging with a switch to “illegal aliens”, would that get me a free pass from you on both the ‘slur’ front and the ‘ethnic’ front?
Because it’s used as an ethnic slur. It may be used as other slurs as well, but most of how I’ve heard it has been against brown-skinned people with Latin American accents (and by those with no knowledge of the target’s immigration status). Maybe the origin of “wetback” comes from people swimming the Rio Grande, but it morphed into a generic ethnic slur against Latin American people (and especially those of Mexican descent).
Yes, I’m not aware of “illegal alien” being used or commonly understood as a slur, so I wouldn’t be critical of that phrase.
Language is complicated, but not so complicated that it’s very difficult to avoid using ethnic slurs.
ASK?
You poor country mouse…
Finally! Was that so fucking hard? You’re still a ranting pedant, however.
Naw, I’d googled it before I first posted my reply to BigT; found three perfectly good hits right off the bat, and figured that they’d still be there the next time I googled, and, sure enough, they were.
Well, this is still the SDMB, right? Don’t folks here tend — strive, even — to point out the precise and exact truth in reply to a question or an incorrect claim?