FYI, in many places – US and abroad – there are programs that allow female inmates to keep 1-2 children with them in prison until they reach school age.
(Doesn’t invalidate your general argument, but I think it’s interesting and worth googling if you’ve never read about it.)
When Bush appears to make sense, you have to question why.
There is no need for massive reform of laws. You just need to ensure that the present laws are obeyed. Then the poor conditions that undocumented farm workers endure would not occur.
You would be considered a refugee not some one who sneaked across the border for no reason. That is a big difference, just like if a Cuban escapes to come to the USA there are exceptions to every rule.
Yes, I have heard of that,but I wonder how the children grew up in a prison the example they were given. There is no reason why if a woman is deported why she can’t take her child with her. I think the law should be changed to that only a child born to a person in this country leagally should be an automatic citizen.
My sympathies go to the pople of all countries that have governments that surpress their people, but if we took in all the people from the countries that do we would all be in the same situation if not worse, as it is impossible to care for the entire world. I hope someday the United nations will find some way to make such migrations unnecessary. I cry when I see the way the people of the Sudan,Haiti, and so many of the people in other countries have to survive, one can hardly understand how they do it.
The one thing I cannot understand is why they bring 5 or 6 childern into such a situation and see the bones of their children sticking out like a skeleton and their eyes all glassy.
The people of Darfur were in a far worse state than the Iraqi’s yet we did nothing, but spent the money and lives to get rid of Sadam, while the people of Darfur were left by the millions(according to the BBC reporter’s pictures) with out decent shelter,food, or water. They even showed the Government soldiers running through the camp with jeeps and horses setting the little tents they had made out of sheets and poles for shelter from the desert sun, and burned them down with torches.
It is done so that no one’s precious feelings are hurt.
OED to the rescue:
As a modifying adjective to “immigrant” or “alien,” this use of the adjective, with reference to the underlying verb “to immigrate” or “to be in a country in which you are not a citizen” is entirely logical, proper, and descriptive. In his status as one who has attempted to immigrate, Pablo is not in conformance with what is required by the law. “Illegal” is not limited to “liable for prosecution under a criminal statute,” on the OED definition.
A limit a country can take in terms of what? Clearly there are places far more denslely populated than the U.S. The people in China and India manage to live just fine. If the U.S. population doubled tomorrow, the standard of living would certainly dimishes for the average American, but it would also dramatically increase for all the new immigrants. If the average American’s standard of living was 20% percent worse, but the average new resident sol was 75% better, isn’t that a worthy tradeoff?
Well, usually when a woman is deported, she does take her children with her, even if those children are American citizens.
They are referred to by those sympathetic to their position as “undocumented” because it seems less pejorative than “illegal.” People who use the term are frequently ones who disagree with the current process and laws governing the rights to be in this country.
“Illegal aliens” are, in fact, here illegally if they do not have current permission to be here. Whether the law or process is fair is irrelevant. They are here illegally. It’s just politically correct nonsense to pretend otherwise. It’s also silly to pretend that the issue is they haven’t been given due process. When the term is used, it’s a shorthand for someone who is here without the legal permission to be here. Sure; some small percentage might be found to actually be here legally, but that ain’t what we’re talking about, is it?
I can think of some sort of contorted reason why it might be okay for me to make an undocumented withdrawal from the local ATM with my jackhammer to feed my starving children. It would still be illegal, right up until the law was changed to make such “undocumented” withdrawals legal.
You apparently haven’t been to Parts of China and India where many live in dire poverty. The lower caste of India is sad indeed. They exist, not live a very good life.
If we wnat to impoverish all American’s then your idea may work. The more pieces you devide the pie the less each person has.
:dubious: Who do you imagine sneaks across borders “for no reason”? I’m all in favor of respecting and enforcing immigration laws, but I think it’s possible to support due process without ignoring the fact that most people who enter the US illegally are doing it for what they see as a fairly compelling reason. I really doubt that many people are forking over substantial amounts of family savings to be crammed into cargo trucks and trek across miles of waterless desert just for shits and giggles.
I agree that most of the people generally referred to as “undocumented” have entered the country illegally, and that it’s hairsplitting to object to calling them “illegal immigrants” or “illegal aliens”.
However, I think that terms like “undocumented alien” or “unauthorized immigrant” are also useful, as other posters such as Crazyhorse and GIGObuster have already noted, because they focus on the person’s current status rather than on how they got that way.
After all, to look at an analogous case, if somebody without an employee badge is wandering around my employees-only workplace, what concerns me is not so much the fact that he sneaked past the security guard at the entry desk without signing in, but rather who he is and what he’s doing here and whether he’s actually entitled to be here. Let’s figure out what should be done with him right now, and after that we can worry about how much trouble he’s in for having sneaked past the security guard.
There are 2 million “Undocumented” People living here now. Maybe we should just open all the borders and have about 17 more million come in tomorrow. In Mexico City alone there are 100 million people, their government like many others do not care if their people leave, it is easier than encouraging responsible parenthood or trying to solve the problem them selves.
Add a hundred million tomorrow and see if our country can handle them, if we can then, put out a big welcome sign, take in the truly suffering in Darfur, other African countries, the impoverished of India, China, and other countries of the world. If being undocumented is a good reason to be here then why have a border gaurd,build fences etc.? Look at the money we would save. Would it be enough money to provide all people with homes, health care,food etc.? That would surely be a dream come true for me!
No one is saying that. The question is, what do we do with the 2 million who are living here now?
There are no issues with the term “illegal”, as, unlike stated by someone else, it prejudges absolutely nothing. If they were called “criminal aliens”, then you might have a point. But illegal =/= criminal. Due process is a function in there. Further, people can still be officially undocumented and still be legal citizens of the united states. I have a relative who was born on a reservation who fit into this category until he was 18-19 years old. Rewording things is a classic marxist tactic for trying to control thought.
Uh, yeah this is actually a reason for using the term undocumented, not a reason for NOT using the term undocumented. An undocumented person may be illegally present, or not. All you KNOW is that they lack documents.
That a person is illegally present is a determination only the EOIR (aka Immigration Court) can make.
People who are here illegally are here illegally whether or not anyone says so, or declares them so.
If I go 85 in a 55 zone it’s still speeding, and still a violation, whether or not I am caught and successfully prosecuted.
If (as I have read) there are 2 million, and it is known, then they should be sent back to their own countries and wait until they can come back and be documented. Unless they have escaped for fear of harm in their own countries. As I understand it, Cubans once they hit our soil they are then allowed sanctuary.
It’s not two million, it’s more like 15 million.
I find it hilariously inconsistent when someone demands that illegal aliens as a group be called “undocumented immigrants.” The controversy is over actual illegal aliens, not the merely undocumented. It’s like equating a drug dealer to a pharmacist with an expired license. Technically, they’re both “undocumented pharmacists”, but drug dealers do in fact exist and they are a much bigger concern than pharmacists with expired licenses.
Sure, if you’re talking about a specific individual, a person exceedingly worried about legal correctness may choose not to refer to that person as illegal until a court finds otherwise. But one would expect persons with such tender sensitivities toward the law to be far more concerned with the actual act of lawbreaking than the words we use to describe it.
“Undocumented workers” is even better. They’re not all working, you know.
What if the law said “Speed limit is 55 unless there’s a really good reason.” Without knowing more facts than"Contrapuntal was going 85" how can I tell if you broke the law?