home

Fla. May Ban Use of Term "Illegal Alien"

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 09:49:30 AM EST
Tags: immigrants (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

An enlightened legislator in Florida has introduced a bill to ban the phrase "illegal alien" from state documents.

"I personally find the word 'alien' offensive when applied to individuals, especially to children," said Sen. Frederica Wilson, D-Miami. "An alien to me is someone from out of space."

She has introduced a bill providing that: "A state agency or official may not use the term 'illegal alien' in an official document of the state." There would be no penalty for using the words. In Miami-Dade County, Wilson said, "we don't say 'alien,' we say 'immigrant.'"

The better phrase, as I've used here on TalkLeft for years, is "undocumented resident." I hope this bill passes...and spreads.

< Libby: The Jurors Wore Jeans Today | Marwan Jabour Describes Life in CIA Black Sites >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Fla. May Ban Use of Term "Illegal Alien" | 104 comments (104 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    why is a vague euphemism (none / 0) (#1)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 09:59:00 AM EST
     that would be inaccurate in many  contexts preferable:

      An illegal alien who was found on a given day in Florida might not be a "resident" and he might also not be simply "undocumented" he might not have documents because he is there illegallly.

       Additionally, one might have "documents" and still be "illegal" if the documents were obtained through fraudulent means or misrtepresentations.

      Moreover, an "undocumented resident" could very well be in a given case an American born American citizen who is a resident and simply lacks documents.

      There are REAL and important issues involved but i don't think out-of-control political correctness provides any meaningful progress regardless of one's views on the proper solution.

       

    and so on... (none / 0) (#3)
    by roy on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 10:29:56 AM EST
    There are also those who are legitimately documented, but whose documentation isn't sufficient to let them stay, as for people overstaying legally obtained visas.  So we have documented aliens who are here illegally.

    When people want to talk broadly about non-citizens who are in the country, contrary to relevant laws, "illegal alien" is about as good a term as we're going to get.  We probably need to be more careful about adding "allegedly" where appropriate, but non-compliance with the law is a fundamental part of why we're discussing the people in question.

    As for "alien", well, Wilson doesn't seem to own a dictionary.

    Maybe this afternoon I'll try to find some Florida laws and see if they get more, or less, clear by replacing "illegal alien" with all the nicer terms necessary to cover the same category of people.

    Parent

    DC I agree. For instance (none / 0) (#30)
    by Electa on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:42:00 PM EST
    most homeless people in America are undocumented residents.  In fact the lack of documentation is a major barrier for the homeless accessing supportive services.  So will this newly PC identification of illegal immigrants cross over to include American born citizens who are homeless as well and make it easier for them to receive services in FL?  This just adds another layer of confusion to the already confused immigration debate.

    Parent
    And you are a lawyer??? (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 10:20:44 AM EST
    Do you also think it is right to call someone an illegal real estate developer, or an illegal doctor?  

    Isn't the illegal part something that happens after conviction, otherwise it is alleged. Alien is not so great either. Stigma + Stigma is why so many like the term, whether or not the browned skinned spanish speaker is legally entitled to be in the US or not. Illegal Alien is far from neutral, especially considering that there is tremendous political hay and fearmongering being made about Mexicans taking over the USA.  

    If you think how something is named is a just a trifle, think again. Many have argued that __ is just a name, no harm meant.

    yes i do (none / 0) (#4)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 10:39:19 AM EST
      If someone is practicing medicine without a license or a fraudulently obtained one I see no problem with calling him an "illegal doctor" as a shorthand, although I would think doctors would rather no one called him a doctor and called him a crook claiming to practice medicine.

    Parent
    Illegal Doctor? (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 10:58:09 AM EST
    You would call a person an illegal doctor just by the way they look?

    WOW.

    That is what we are talking about here. Prejudging and stigmatizing someone because of how they look and talk.

    Parent

    Consider the beam in thy own eye. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 11:09:58 AM EST
    squeaky, no one said that we should call illegal aliens by this obviously true and descriptive label "just because of the way they look." That you jumped to that conclusion reflects your biases, not Decon's.

    Parent
    Conflation (none / 0) (#36)
    by roy on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 02:39:57 PM EST
    The question of what phrase to use to describe a category of people is separate from the question of how to determine whether a person belongs to that category.

    Parent
    Illegal (none / 0) (#9)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 11:06:35 AM EST
    squeaky, I think Decon is on the right track with his reply, but I want to add that the illegality of an act occurs at the time of the act. If I were to murder a person, the act of murder is illegal at the time it occurs, not just when I am convicted.

    The criminal legal system uses a presumption of innocence, for purposes of laying the burdens of proof and pursuasion. But that does not mean that an act is not illegal until the courts find a conviction.

    Also, the presumption of innocence (or presumption of legality, in this situation) does not adhere in all situations. There is no such presumption for civil cases and the courts have long held immigration matters to be civil cases.

    Parent

    Illegal acts (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 11:15:58 AM EST
    So, round em all up, kinda like Giuliani Time.

    Anyone brown skinned is Illegal and let the courts figure it out. Forget about their papers or lack of it, the Judge will sort that out.

    Yes, why not model America on Germany of the 1930's. Giuliani has improved on the fascism of 'Old Germany'. The police no longer have to ask for papers. Skin tone is enough to be illegal.

     

    Parent

    No. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 11:33:53 AM EST
    I would like to note for my fellow commenters (and lurking readers) that I did not and would not advocate the course of action described by squeaky above.

    He somehow believes that the use of the term "illegal alien" directly leads to "round up all brown-skinned people." In fact, squeaky has made quite a few unstated assumptions to make that leap of logic.

    I do not agree with those assumptions and, as I noted upthread, I believe they are the product of squeaky's own prejudices.

    Parent

    Your Words Gabe (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:05:04 PM EST
    I want to add that the illegality of an act occurs at the time of the act.

    So as to breaking immigration laws, how do you know that someone broke the law? What if someone has not broken any law but looks like they may have, are they illegal?

    Also, the presumption of innocence (or presumption of legality, in this situation) does not adhere in all situations. There is no such presumption for civil cases and the courts have long held immigration matters to be civil cases.

    empasis mine

    No presumption of innocence? Is that a non-sequitur or is that part of your argument for rounding up people who look like they are breaking immigration laws?

    Parent

    Please read it again. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:03:56 PM EST
    squeaky, please read my comments again. Your questions show that either I have not made myself clear, or that you are being intentionally difficult. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and answer your questions.

    (1) So as to breaking immigration laws, how do you know that someone broke the law?

    Well, the most obvious way is that they will not be in possession of proper identification. USCs (that's US citizens, not Trojans ;) take for granted many things including the ability to get employment, get loans and bank accounts, and vote, all of which require some kind of identification.

    In addition to these everyday activities, almost every interaction with the government (federal, state, and local) requires identification. This is actually one of the most common ways that illegals are discovered and referred to DHS. They have some interaction with the government and the government discovers that they are not properly documented.

    There are, of course, other obvious methods of discovering illegals, including catching them in the act at the border.

    (2) What if someone has not broken any law but looks like they may have, are they illegal?

    Obviously not. Duh. Hello?...is this thing on?

    (3) No presumption of innocence? Is that a non-sequitur or is that part of your argument for rounding up people who look like they are breaking immigration laws?

    First, once again: I have not made an argument for rounding up people who look like they are breaking immigration laws. Please stop ascribing that position to me. I find it very rude.

    Second, as I explained above, the presumption of innocence is a burden-shifting tool used in the criminal justice system to ensure that alleged criminals get a fair trial. It forces the prosecutor to prove guilt, rather than require the alleged criminal to prove innocence.

    I further explained that it is not applied outside of the criminal justice system. The Supreme Court and Congress have long held removal proceedings (formerly exclusion and deportation proceedings) as civil in nature. That means that the usual trappings of criminal justice do not apply so long as the nature of the remedy is not punishment:

    an order of deportation is not a punishment for crime...[therefore] the provisions of the Constitution securing the right of trial by jury, and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, and cruel and unusual punisments, have no application.

    Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698.

    And that includes the presumption of innocence (or presumption of legality, here). Immigrants to this country have the burden of proving that they meet the immigration and admissibility requirements. They must affirmatively prove their status.

    In other words, a person without documentation has the burden of proving that they made a legal entry and continue to reside legally in the U.S.

    Parent

    Illegals (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:11:30 PM EST
    So as a lawyer you are comfortable with calling someone illegal. Their very person illegal?

    Because someone breaks the law they are not illegal, their act is illegal.

    Calling someone illegal is akin to hate speech. I am surprised that anyone with an education would be fine with that.

    Parent

    Illegals (none / 0) (#25)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:18:07 PM EST
    First, I am not a lawyer...yet!

    Second, no, I have no problem calling illegal aliens "illegals" as a short-hand descriptor. "Illegal" is an adjective that describes "aliens" which is what they are. No problem.

    Parent

    Illegals (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:29:42 PM EST
    Are you aware of the hate and bigotry in America towards non whites, by whites? Are you part of that crowd?  

    Why would you want to fan the flames of hatred by calling a person an illegal person? Most who use the term have little interest whether or not the person has broken any laws. It is a term embraced by White Supremetists. Does that trouble you?

    Are you aware that the jews has a similar classification in germany? Illegal people.

    Are you aware that anti immigration movements are usually fueled by racists and bigots?

    Are you afraid that the 'illegals' are going to destroy America as you know it?

    Parent

    Forbearance (none / 0) (#34)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:56:24 PM EST
    My forbearance has run out, squeaky.

    First:

    Guilt by Association is a type of ad hominem fallacy that attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.

    Second:

    Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a mainstay of Internet culture, an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
    ...
    There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress.


    Parent
    Nice (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 02:19:02 PM EST
    Non-answer.

    Parent
    The distinction isn't (none / 0) (#27)
    by Patrick on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:30:09 PM EST
    their status as a person, but their status as a resident and it is wholly applicable.  In fact your whole position would be laughable if I didn't know there were people that agree with you.  

    Parent
    Technicalities (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:35:46 PM EST
    Yes, Patrick, you can argue technical semantics all you want. Calling a person illegal connotes much more than breaking a law.

    Parent
    The illegal act is in continuum. (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:45:50 PM EST
    One who has enslaved another can be rightly referred to as an "illegal slave owner."

    Parent
    Or maybe mo' better (none / 0) (#32)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:48:47 PM EST
    "illegal slave holder."

    Parent
    illegal aliens (none / 0) (#5)
    by diogenes on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 10:45:49 AM EST
    An illegal alien is a noncitizen (alien) who is here illegally (unlike people with green cards, tourist visas, etc).  Those who aren't proven to be here illegally are "alleged illegal aliens" I suppose.
    This bill either pandering or political correctness, I'm not sure which.
    Some people will assume that brown skinned Mexicans are here illegally whether you call them illegal aliens, undocumented residents, angels from Heaven, or whatever.  Changing the title of "Black" to "African American" hasn't cured racism at all.
    This is nonsense (none / 0) (#6)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 10:46:43 AM EST
    Not only is this nonsense, but it is likely to lead to more harm than good.

    First, her understanding of the word "alien" is seriously lacking. The article quotes her as conflating the words "alien" and "immigrant." This deliberately obscures the meaning of the words.

    "Alien" is used in law (state and federal since time out of mind) to mean a person without a U.S. immigration status. Aliens are those who are not in possession of citizenship, legal permanent resident status, an immigrant visa, or a non-immigrant visa. It is applied generally to those who have no legal immigration relationship with the U.S.

    "Immigrant," on the other hand, has a very specific meaning in immigration law: one who intends to move to, reside in, and otherwise join the U.S. with the permission of the U.S. The entire point is that you cannot achieve immigrant status against the will of the country you are trying to immigrate to.

    Second, deliberately obscuring these terms is likely to lead to difficulties for the State in administrating and regulating benefits and services. Notwithstanding the fact that merely counting these two different groups of people will be more difficult if the State were forbidden from labeling them differently, the State is likely going to have trouble administering federally funded programs (and state programs, if Florida has them) that allow benefits for immigrants, but not for aliens.

    This merely emphasizes the fact that there is a reason we have different words for these two distinct groups of people. The mark of intelligence is the ability to make reasonable distinctions. The fact that some people want to obscure these reasonable distinctions therefore raises an obvious question.

    Finally, Senator Wilson notes that there is great stigma associated with the word "alien," at least in her own mind and apparently that of others, including our host. But the offensiveness of the word is, I think, a product of their own prejudices rather than a reflection of the true status of the word.

    In their desire to put a gloss on the situation and status of illegal aliens, pro-illegal activity advocates have created a series of euphemisms to present a gentler and seemingly more moral position than their opponents. We'll set aside for a minute whether encouraging illegal activity is more moral than discouraging it in the context of immigration law, but the fact is they have chosen to make use of euphemisms.

    Now, not content to use the euphemisms themselves, they are attempting to force the rest of us to do it, too. And the best part is that they are appealing to our desire not to be "offensive" in order to convince us. That's what will be said of opponents to this bill: "those people just want to be 'offensive.'"

    Her understanding (none / 0) (#28)
    by Patrick on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:31:35 PM EST
    is right on.  Aliens are little green men from outerspace.   LMAO

    Parent
    Heh. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:48:50 PM EST
    Honestly Patrick, I have to sympathise with her. I grew up on Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Wars and had to make a major shift in my thinking when I discovered in junior high or high school that "aliens" meant more than just Klingons and Wookiees.

    As the great one said: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

    Parent

    Funny (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 11:04:34 AM EST
    How wingnuttia is unanimously in favor of the term illegal alien. Wonder why? Could it have anything yo do with the 'The Jacksonian Tradition' aka White Supremetism.

    Jondee, more racists under the bed?? (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 08:41:41 PM EST
    In case you're wondering  what Jondee is spewing about, here is an article describing "The Jacksonian Tradition."

    I am sure you will find it a racist screed. (Sarcasm alert.)

    Parent

    A challenge to those who advocate the change (none / 0) (#12)
    by roy on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 11:18:56 AM EST
    What's the best phrase you can think of that includes all of these categories:

    1  Non-citizens who sneak into the US (i.e. they'r e undocumented)
    2  Non-citizens who enter the US with permission, based on forged or fraudulently obtained documents
    3  Non-citizens who enter the US legally (with permission, based on legit documents), but remain here after that permission expires (i.e. they got a tourist visa and stayed longer than the visa allows)
    4  Non-citizens who enter the US legally, who work without permission (i.e. they got a tourist visa and worked, or they have a work visa and change jobs without complying with the relevant restrictions)
    5  People from 1-3 who work
    5  People from 1-3 who do not work
    6  People from 1-4 who are immigrants (they plan on staying for a long time)
    7  People from 1-4 who are not immigrants (they're only here temporarily)

    ... AND excludes all of these categories:

    8  Citizens
    9  Non-citizens who are here legally, and work only if they have permission

    Two concessions:

    1  The phrase "illegal alien" doesn't meet this test, as it excludes #4.
    2  In legal documents, unlike in common language, we have the option of simply inventing a new innocuous-sounding phrase and defining it as whatever we want.  So a long, contrived phrase doesn't have to be a big problem: just write it once.  We can replace "illegal alien" with "international friend", with no lost precision, if we define it right.

    Unlawful alien? (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:05:42 PM EST
    Touches not only on their lack of legal immigration status but also that, due to same, many of their other activities while living w/in US borders are also against the law.

    Parent
    Euphemisms (none / 0) (#14)
    by jarober on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 11:53:22 AM EST
    It's kind of amusing watching peoplet create euphemisms for perfectly descriptive terms that might let people know what's actually being discussed.

    So let me ask, Jeralyn:  If I'm caught driving without a license, am I an "undocumented driver"?

    Or I'm practicing law without a license, I must be an "undocumented lawyer" - illegally practicing law just sounds so harsh.

    Not quite right (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:20:31 PM EST
    Your analogy is weak. Illegals as they are called, or illegal aliens names the entire person as illegal. A nullification of their being based on the way they look.

    Your analogies are off.

    If I'm caught driving without a license, am I an "undocumented driver"
    No you are driving illegally at worst, at best you forgot your license at home.

    Parent
    Where you consistently go off track. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:39:16 PM EST
    squeaky writes that calling illegal aliens, well, "illegal aliens" is:

    A nullification of their being based on the way they look.

    And that is where he has repeatedly tried to derail this discussion. No one said we're classifying illegal aliens "based on the way they look." Rather, we're classifying illegal aliens as "illegal aliens" because they fit the description: persons who have entered or reside in the country in violation of law.

    Apparently squeaky thinks we'll be able to identify illegal aliens by the way they look. I don't think that's true and I haven't seen Decon or jarober say that either. Once again squeaky is projecting his own prejudice--that illegals have a certain "look" to them--and putting it on others.

    Parent

    Generally speaking..... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:12:02 PM EST
    banning words is like banning books....always wrong.  Wrong here in NY, where some state legislator is trying to ban the "n" word, and wrong in Florida.

    If the legislators of Florida don't want to use this term (sounds good to me, I'm not a fan)....why can't they just not use it and refuse to sponsor or vote for legislation that contains the phrase?  That alternative seems a lot better than banning words like a bunch of fascists.

    Ban (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:29:10 PM EST
    I do not see this as banning as you put it, kdog. It is legislating legal language that more concise. There is no penalty involved.

    Banning books is really different. In Germany, for instance, hate speech is a crime. Given the bubbling hate for non whites here in America, I think it is a good idea that the Government adjust their language so as not to fan the flames.

    People are still free to say bigoted and racist things, the 'ban' doesn't stop that.

    Parent

    Thanks squeaky.... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:32:15 PM EST
    I see your point.

    But wouldn't it still be easier just to not vote for or sponsor legislation containing the term?

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:44:59 PM EST
    That would be easier, kdog. I think this is more about Public awareness. Some words that were once commonly used fell out of use because people realized that the words were a put down. Just like slavery seemed normal at one time, gradually thinking people realized that it was wrong.

    So I think that first people have to become aware of why a term is bigoted, and then they can not vote for or sponsor legislation using that term. Someone has to start the ball rolling though.

    So... (none / 0) (#37)
    by jarober on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 06:48:23 PM EST
    So I think I'll start calling myself an undocumented lawyer.  I'm sure TL will be fine with that - after all, "illegal" just has too many negative connotations.

    Fine (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 08:00:06 PM EST
    You can be an undocumented lawyer. Then you can be charged with illegally practicing law without a law license. That doesn't make you illegal, it makes your actions in committing a crime illegal. Which is more of an illegality than most undocumented residents ever commit.

    Many if not most undocumented residents have committed no crime. By being here without proper papers they are in violation of a civil statute, not a criminal one.

    Parent

    I believe, (none / 0) (#42)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 08:18:00 PM EST
    Many if not most undocumented residents have committed no crime

    for example, failure to file and/or pay income taxes is a crime. I would suggest that most, if not all unlawful immigrants, earn monies for which they did not file nor pay income taxes on.

    Many obtain and use fraudulent ID's/SS#'s, get driver's license's under fraudulent pretenses, drive without licenses, drive with no insurance, etc., etc., etc. All of these are crimes.

    So, many if not most undocumented residents/illegal aliens have committed and continue to commit at least one and perhaps many crimes.

    Parent

    If that's what you're worried about... (none / 0) (#44)
    by roy on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 08:23:30 PM EST
    Now you're not talking about the illegalness of their alienness, you're talking about crimes you think people from that group commit.  If we take "illegal alien" to mean all that extra stuff, it's no longer a precise term, it's just a way of muddying the waters.

    Parent
    Fair point, (none / 0) (#45)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 08:38:02 PM EST
    although I was responding directly to JM's
    Many if not most undocumented residents have committed no crime
    comment.  

    However, in response to your point, that is why I suggested "unlawful alien" earlier today in response to your earlier question - it covers both the "illegalness of their allieness" and their defacto ongoing illegal activities.

    Parent

    And, lastly, (none / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 11:56:58 AM EST
    By being here without proper papers they are in violation of a civil statute, not a criminal one.
    violations of law, whether the law is civil or criminal, is illegal:

    il·le·gal      ɪˈligəl Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-lee-guhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
    -adjective
    1. forbidden by law or statute.  
    2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass.  
    -noun
    3. Informal. illegal alien


    Parent
    Word Play (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:11:16 PM EST
    We all know what alien connotes. Google it and you will see that by far it means non-human usually from outer space.

    As far as an illegal, the common usage by white supremetists and their, er... cough, cough, distant cousins, is demeaning. Not far from the non-human category that slaves were placed.

    Calling someone illegal puts them below a child rapist, mass murderer and the worst criminals in existance.

    Parent

    If you say so squeaky (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:23:09 PM EST


    Parent
    but, to be fair, (none / 0) (#50)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:28:41 PM EST
    not below an illegal child rapist, illegal mass murdurer, or the worst illegal criminals in existence.

    Parent
    Play (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:33:54 PM EST
    Yes Peaches, were those terms ever used you would be correct. Your stretch is obviously in jest.

    Parent
    yes, playing. ;) (none / 0) (#53)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:40:37 PM EST
    I'm just sitting here bored during a snowstorm waiting for my seeds to germinate.

    Parent
    Sounds more like Dogma to me... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Torq88 on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:35:39 PM EST
    Hi Squeaky,

    Both "Alien" and "illegal" are perfectly accurate terms. This describes their status and their own CHOSEN actions. Both words are common English and have been around far longer in common usage and English Common Law for centuries.

    Are we to redefine "burglar" to "undocumented provision-er"? This is silly.

    People who are illegal immigrants are just people who have broken the law by moving to this country (or any other country on Earth) without a lawful right. Thus: They are ILLEGAL ALIENS, simple as that.

    Here maybe this will help:

    When a person breaks a law or performs an act prohibited by law we call that action: ILLEGAL

    When that person is an unnaturalized foreign resident of a country they are residing in the correct term is: ALIEN

    Try checking a dictionary or any law book for help on these very common everyday words, that we won't be changing the meaning of anytime soon.

    Also try just saying what you believe or want to happen openly and honestly. You will feel better and be more respected. This will be true even when people disagree with you. In this way people will start to perceive you as being more honest.

    Please don't try to get others agree with a silly twisting and redefining common simple words to your own political purposes. This crazy woman in Florida is just a panderer and hopes not to lose her cushy job. She looks crazy and won't get anywhere with this for long. Even if she does she will become a laughing stock and will probably serve to piss off enough people to help curb a lot of this illegal immigration activity so a balance of sorts will be restored I suppose...

    Parent

    BlaBlaBla (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 01:03:10 PM EST
    When a person breaks a law or performs an act prohibited by law we call that action: ILLEGAL

    Yes, but when it comes to mexicans and other browned skinned people we call them illegals.

    You can quote all the dictonaries in the world and it won't make your argument valid.

    Nigger just means black, right? Not. The dictionary always lags behind common usage.

    It seems clear to me that the reason FL is changing the name of illegal alien is because many legal voting people who live in FL find the term insulting, especially when it is used as a racial or bigotted slur.

    Parent

    Squeaky are you well, are you a troll? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Torq88 on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 01:00:33 PM EST
    Squeaky,

    I think I mentioned in my posts that my wife is a dark brown "Legal Immigrant". Also you can check to find that I mentioned as well that many many people in this country that are illegal aliens are white. I applied as does Federal Law the same definition to them all regardless of national origin or race.

    You are certainly free to hold any opinion you like. I encourage you however to be very careful about insinuating that I am a racist; as I am not. I have helped a number of people with their legal immigration process and none of them were white.

    You make my point quite well that since you can't actually defend your position with facts you attack me and try to suggest that I am a racist because I don't agree with you.

    That tact may have worked in the 90's but it isn't getting much traction these days as the length of this post and a million like them on the web ought to tell you.

    Do not even suggest again that I am a racist.

    Parent

    Squeaky, actually the word "alien" (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 08:55:36 PM EST
    existd long before the concept of outer space existed.

    Trust me squeaky. The world existed long before you came on the scene and will continue to exist long after you are gone.

    Education is supposed to teach us a few things, such as history, morals, etc., that will let us put things into concept so that we don't become confused and bore the world to death by yelling, ME ME ME at all times.

    Parent

    actually a huge number have committed a crime (none / 0) (#54)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:43:38 PM EST
     under our statutes:

      among criminal offense are :

     Entering the USA without permission
     Failing to register after entering
     using fraudulent documents
     working w/o proper documentation
    etc.

      To my knowledge the only class of "undocumented immigrants" who are not in violation of CRIMINAL law are those who entered legally with proper documentation and then did not leave but do not work. Even then as I recall it is an offense not to surrender for removal upon receiving notice.

      There are many are simply "over-staying" because even a small proportion of the total number of illegal aliens is a big number  and they are subject only to administrative sanction (removal) by ICE.

      But,  it is jusr an assetion without support to say most  have committed no offense since we only know (or at least the government should know I wouldn't bet Homeland Security/ICE actually can document even those numbers in reality)  the number we allow in legally who overstay.

       I've never seen anywhere where it was even argued that MOST illegal aliens entered legally and then simply didn't leave.


    Parent

    Desperate Fla legislator outlaws factual term (none / 0) (#39)
    by Torq88 on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 07:18:58 PM EST
    This is an attempt to try to outlaw free speech. Basically "illegal alien" is a legal description and it is quite accurate and just.

    If you are in this or any country illegally you are an illegal alien, sorry. Mexico for example usually puts illegal aliens in immigration jail quite regularly for 2 years at a pop. France, Germany, England, China, Thailand, etc...Any sovereign country uses this term or a harsher one to describe people who are ILLEGALLY residing in their country.

    My wife is a LEGAL immigrant to the US and she is dark brown in color by the way. Her paperwork was/is extremely expensive. My wife is a LEGAL immigrant by being a LEGAL immigrant her color did not MAGICALLY change from dark brown to Lily white.

    Also there are many many illegal WHITE immigrants in the US from countries like the UK, Eastern Europe and Canada. So it is an absolute delusion to say that only "brown" people are here illegally or are affected when they are compelled to follow the law.

    Basically there seem to be a lot of people in this country who want to PROFIT from breaking the law and PUNISH people who OBEY the law. Of course these hypocrites randomly apply their standards to their own "fact free" existence.

    Why is it that so many people in this debate can't deal with facts that don't suit their positions head on? If you want open borders (no other country on earth does this, Mexico and France least of all) just say so don't lie stupidly like a child.

    Illegal immigrants are just people black, white, yellow, brown who have CHOSEN to break the law that's why they are called ILLEGAL that's all. Yoou don't have to worry about the stigma if you don't break the law, that's all... ;-)

    A comment by Pancho (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 08:01:39 PM EST
    has been deleted from this thread. TalkLeft does not allow racist comments or name-calling.  He is on warning that if he does it again, he will be banned from the site.

    Sigh (none / 0) (#43)
    by jarober on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 08:19:22 PM EST
    This is just amazing:


    You can be an undocumented lawyer. Then you can be charged with illegally practicing law without a law license. That doesn't make you illegal, it makes your actions in committing a crime illegal. Which is more of an illegality than most undocumented residents ever commit.

    Many if not most undocumented residents have committed no crime. By being here without proper papers they are in violation of a civil statute, not a criminal one.

    Civil, or Criminal, they don't belong here.  Just as I would be punished for practicing law without a license, illegal aliens should be punished for coming here without following the established rules.  You understand the problem with respect to your profession, and try to wrap a confusing bundle of verbiage around the alien issue.

    Which is very telling - if it impacts your wallet, you notice.  Let me bring up an example.  Last night, "DateLine" did a show on a particular family's breakdown when the father - who had been convicted on an illegal drug charge - came back from prison.  His daughter (being raised by his mother) fell apart as his behavior cycled back down the drain.

    Initially, his behavior wasn't bad - but he had problems landing a job.  Now, realistically, what kinds of jobs are most available to ex-cons?  Low skill, lower paying ones.  Things like yard work, lawn services, that kind of thing.  Look around your neighborhood - if it's anything like mine, you'll notice that most of the people doing it are from Central and South America (I speak Spanish, which is how I know).  I'd bet good money that many of them are illegals.

    So back to the ex-con - without the huge influx of low-skill illegals, people in his position would have a shot at landing a low skill job in their area.  With the flood - not so much.  It would still be something of an uphill climb with the record, but that's the way it is.

    Mind you, I agree with you on drug laws - but that's not really the point here.  The bottom line is this: If you favor making it easy on illegal aliens, you are taking a stand against the lowest skilled set of citizens.  I realize it's not intentional - but it's true nevertheless.

    Interesting..... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 08:37:25 AM EST
    Civil, or Criminal, they don't belong here

    Tell that to your god or mother nature...I don't think they got the memo.  Somebody born 2 miles south of the Rio Grande "does not belong" 2 1/2 miles north?  It makes no sense to me.  The act of being born means you belong here.

    Parent

    That's YOUR view (none / 0) (#62)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 08:45:03 AM EST
    It's not the law.

     I can say I don't think it should be illegal for one without a license to practice law because God or nature did not create legal education, the bar exams and the licensing agencies. I could propound that the exclusion is an artificial and self-interested creation of those with the power to impose their arbitrary interests on others.

      Regardless of my view I would still be "illegal" if I practiced law without a license. Person in this country in violation of the law are similarly "illegal" regardless of what one thinks about the law being violated.

      As I said, if you don't approve of the "illegal" moniker thenm work to change the law that makes it illegal  because perverting language doesn't solve the problem.

    Parent

    I guess I think..... (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 08:55:36 AM EST
    some things are bigger than "the law".  Like the inalienable right to occupy space on this earth once you've been born.

    I was taking issue with "they don't belong here".  In my book if you were born you belong.

    Parent

    So, theoretically... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 09:06:49 AM EST
     if 1 billion people from other lands  wanted to live here, you believe they have the inalienable right to do so and any interest in avoiding the many problems that might cause would justify no law restricting movement whatsoever? Fair enough.

      By the way, I've decided your house would be a good place for me and 100 of my closest friends to live. We'll be there tomorrow.

    Parent

    Yes.... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 10:21:20 AM EST
    I believe people have an inalienable right to roam the sphere they inhabit.

    If 1 billion came tomorrow, it wouldn't be as an attractive place to live and the people would spread out.  Kinda like a free-market solution.  As it is now, obviously we have the space since millions of "illegal" people are here as we type.

    And yes, I realize this is a pretty radical idea and not very practical in our current social construct.  But if the alternative is chaining and caging human beings for crossing imaginary lines on a map, I prefer it.  

    PS...You and your friends ain't comin' in the house, but it's fine by me to build a dwelling in the yard (though my landlord might object).  This land is your land, this land is my land brother.  There is a park nearby too with lots of room for some cabins.  I won't object.

    Parent

    not good enough (none / 0) (#66)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 10:31:32 AM EST
     You ain't consigning me to some freakin' refugee camp you damn imperialist fascist SOB.

      I have the inalienable right to occupy the space I choose on this planet because I was born. I choose your house and the your prior occupation and any legal rights you think you have don't mean a thing- God didn't put you there so you have no superior claim to me.

      And, don't think you can deny me my right to be fed, clothed either.

      Try to stop us, fascist pig, and we'll sneak in through a window and we all agree that once I'm it will be violation of my rights to even call me "illegal" let alone take any action to remove me.

      Don't talk the talk if you can't walk the walk.

    Parent

    There is the ideal, where we are all free and equa (none / 0) (#69)
    by Peaches on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 10:54:22 AM EST
    And then there is the practical or what Issac Asimov explained to Bill Moyers as Freedom of the Bathroom.

    Moyers: What happens to the idea of the dignity of the human species if population growth continues at its present rate?

    Asimov: It will be completely destroyed. I will use what I call my bathroom metaphor. Two people live in an apartment and there are two bathrooms, then both have the freedom of the bathroom. You can go to the bathroom anytime you want, and stay as long as you want, for whatever you need. Everyone believes in the freedom of the bathroom. It should be right there in the Constitution. But if you have 20 people in the apartment and two bathrooms, no matter how much every person believes in the freedom of the bathroom, there is no such thing. You have to set up times for each person, you have to bang at the door, "Aren't you through yet?" and so on.

    The same way democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies. The more people there are the less one individual matters.



    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 10:55:56 AM EST
    Building a dwelling for yourself in an open space is a refugee camp now? I'll tell the guys who built cardboard shacks in the woods near my house they are refugees, I'm sure it will be news to them.  They call it "home". You might call it an "illegal home".

    And I've never said that anybody has inalienable right to be fed or clothed...just to breath and roam and occupy space.

    I love ya Decon but you went way overboard there.  Maybe I wasn't clear....If a person wants to come inside the lines on the map and find a person willing to rent them a dwelling, or build one in a space that isn't already occupied, they have my blessing.  I never said anybody has a right to your dwelling or mine, just the space we ain't using.

    Parent

    Wow.. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 11:02:38 AM EST
     ...you just alienated the Hell of my "inalienable" right. Basically, it's no right at all is it if it isn't the "right" you want to give me.

      Sad to say, you're just like good ol' Uncle Sam when we get down to brass tacks aren't you.

    Parent

    You lost me...... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 11:45:29 AM EST
    I think it is time to agree to disagree Decon.  I guess I'm not nearly eloquent enough to make you see my point.

    Keep on advocating the chaining and caging of "illegals" and shipping them back to where they "belong" if you think that is right.

    I can't advocate that.

    Parent

    I'm not asking you to advocate that (none / 0) (#76)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 11:51:42 AM EST
      I'm asking you to understand the foundation of and the reasons for laws. Once you undertand that, you will still be free to advocate changing the lwas you think need changed. you will just be able to both make better points in favor of your position and do a better job of refuting competing views.

    Parent
    The reason for laws.... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 12:07:20 PM EST
    in a nutshell, is to maintain social order, right?  

    The trick is to balance social order with the upmost individual liberty possible.  In my view, the scales of immigration laws have tipped to far away from individual liberty.  A person without the precious "documents" roaming the earth is no grave threat to social order, in my view.

    As for changing the laws....only heavy campaign contributors have that ability these days.  People like me (and the undocumented earth-roamer) either have to follow 'em or ignore 'em.  We don't have the power (aka the cash) to change them.  The only way the average joe can change the laws is when enough average joes disregard them and the govt. has no choice but to change them to maintain social order.

    Parent

    Or (none / 0) (#79)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    Things would change dramatically in favor of the undocumented workers if they were all able to instantly leave America.

    Our economy would collapes and chaos would ensue. Strange how much power the powerless really have.

    Parent

    Konnichiwa, konnichiwa wa (none / 0) (#67)
    by Peaches on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 10:34:26 AM EST
    I don't need a passport to walk on this earth
    Anywhere I go 'cause I was made of this earth
    I'm born of this earth, I breathe of this earth
    And even with the pain I believe in this earth
    so I wake up in every mornin' and I'm steppin' out the door
    I got faith in the sky
    faith in the one
    faith in the people rockin' underneath the sun
    'cause every bit of land is a holy land
    and every drop of water is a holy water
    and so don't tell a man that he can't come here
    'cause he got brown eyes and a wavy kind of hair,
    And don't tell a woman that she can't go there
    `Cause she prays a little different to a god up there,

    You say you're a Christian 'cause God made you,
    You say you're a Muslim 'cause God made you,
    You say you're a Hindu and the next man a Jew
    And we all kill each other 'cause god told us to? NAH!

    Hello, hello!
    Bonjour, bonjour!
    Hola, hola!
    Konnichiwa, konnichiwa wa!

    My Man - Michael Franti and Spearhead

    Parent

    Thats what I'm on about! (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 11:47:40 AM EST
    Good stuff Peaches.

    Parent
    Hahahahhhaha (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 10:44:12 AM EST
    Regardless of my view I would still be "illegal" if I practiced law without a license.

    Utter nonsense. No one would call you illegal, unless you had dark skin and had a Spanish accent. Regardless of your breaking the law by practicing without a license calling you illegal would be meant as a slur. Kind of like: we don't like your kind around here.

    Parent

    Here's the bottom line (none / 0) (#56)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 01:11:45 PM EST
      Orwellian manipulation of the language does not change a single reality. A rose by any other name...

      The people in question will continue to be ILLEGAL until we change those laws that make their presence in this country illegal not until some foolish law is passed requiring the use of a euphemism to describe them.

      As I keep syaing this place can be bizarre. We have a silly loaw with no real world effect other than symbolism in florida and people fall all all over themselves to defend it. We have a law in the neighboring state of Georgia which while not of much importanc e merely would ban profiteerrs from selling marijuana themed candy to children and people fall all over themselves attcking it.

     

    Illegal People (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 05:45:47 PM EST
    The people in question will continue to be ILLEGAL
    Kinda like Palestinians are illegal, or African Slaves were illegal? Lepers?

    It is amazing to me that you believe that a person can be illegal. Yes, there is big history behind that notion, history most of us are working hard not to repeat.

    squeaky. Don't be obtuse. (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 09:09:51 PM EST
    Kinda like Palestinians are illegal, or African Slaves were illegal? Lepers?

    Can you show us where this has been said???

    Although this has been attempted, above, by better wordsmiths than me, let me try again.

    "Alien." The person is not from here.

    "Illegal." The person is here illegally.

    Therefore "Illegal" is a descriptive qualifier of "Alien."

    "Great player."

    The person is a player. How do I describe this person's talents simply and accurately.

    "Great player."

    "Illegal Alien."

    Parent

    "Squeaky, don't be obtuse" (none / 0) (#60)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 08:22:22 AM EST
    "fire, don't be hot"
    "ice, don't be cold"

    Parent
    Human's can not be illegal (none / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 11:37:55 AM EST
    Can you show us where this has been said???
    link

    Illegal describes an act not a person. Calling somone a player is gramatically different from calling someone illegal, or an illegal.

    If you do not see this you should do a grade school refresher course.

    Parent

    actually, where i went to grade school (none / 0) (#73)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 11:43:46 AM EST
     "illegal" was an adjective which modified a noun or other adjective

    and "illegally" was an adverb which modified vers including action verbs.

      Maybe if you had paid attention in school or at least attempted to bring yourself up to grade school level now, you would know that -- not to mention countless other things that would make you appear less foolish.

    Parent

    An Illegal (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 11:53:49 AM EST
    HMmmmmmmm.

    Didn't know that it was a  noun. Maybe you also need to do some remedial brushing up.

    From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48:

    Illegal Il*le"gal, a. [Pref. il- not + legal: cf. F.
       ill['e]gal.]
       Not according to, or authorized by, law; specif., contrary
       to, or in violation of, human law; unlawful; illicit; hence,
       immoral; as, an illegal act; illegal trade; illegal love.
       --Bp. Burnet.
       [1913 Webster]

    -----------------

    From WordNet (r) 2.0:

    illegal
         adj : prohibited by law or by official or accepted rules; "an
               illegal chess move" [ant: legal]

    -----------------

    From Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0:

    105 Moby Thesaurus words for "illegal":
       aberrant, abnormal, abominable, actionable, against the law,
       anarchic, anarchistic, anomic, atrocious, banned, barred,
       black-market, bootleg, chargeable, contraband, contrary to law,
       criminal, delinquent, deviant, disgraceful, evil, felonious,
       flawed, forbade, forbid, forbidden, hardly the thing, hot,
       ignominious, illegitimate, illicit, impermissible, improper,
       inappropriate, incorrect, indecorous, inequitable, infamous,
       iniquitous, interdicted, irregular, justiciable, lawless,
       nonconstitutional, nonlegal, nonlicit, nonpermissible, not done,
       not permitted, not the thing, off limits, off-base, off-color,
       out of bounds, out-of-line, outlaw, outlawed, prohibited,
       proscribed, punishable, ruled out, sacrilegious, scandalous,
       shameful, shameless, sinful, taboo, tabooed, terrible, triable,
       unallowed, unauthorized, unbalanced, unconstitutional,
       under the ban, under-the-counter, under-the-table, undeserved,
       undue, unequal, unequitable, uneven, unfit, unfitting, unjust,
       unlawful, unlicensed, unmeet, unmerited, unofficial, unpermissible,
       unrighteous, unrightful, unsanctioned, unseemly, unstatutory,
       unsuitable, untouchable, unwarrantable, unwarranted, verboten,
       vetoed, wicked, wrong, wrongful

    -----------------

    From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856):

    ILLEGAL. Contrary to law; unlawful.
         2. It is a general rule, that the law will never give its aid to a
    party who has entered into an illegal contract, whether the same be in
    direct violation of a statute, against public policy, or opposed to public
    morals. Nor to a contract which is fraudulent, which affects the defendant
    or a third person.
         3. A contract in violation of a statute is absolutely void, and,
    however disguised, it will be set aside, for no form of expression can
    remove the substantial defect inherent in the nature of the transaction; the
    courts will investigate the real object of the contracting parties, and if
    that be repugnant to the law, it will vitiate the transaction.
         4. Contracts against the public policy of the law, are equally void as
    if they were in violation of a public statute; a contract not to marry any
    one, is therefore illegal and void. See Void.
         5. A contract against the purity of manners is also illegal; as, for
    example, a agreement to cohabit unlawfully with another, is therefore void;
    but a bond given for past cohabitation, being considered as remuneration for
    past injury, is binding. 4 Bouv. Inst. n. 3853.
         6. All contracts which have for their object, or which may in their
    consequences, be injurious to third persons, altogether unconnected with
    them, are in general illegal and void. Of the first, an example may be found
    in the case where a sheriff's officer received a sum of money from a
    defendant for admitting to bail, and agreed to pay the bail, part of the
    money which was so exacted. 2 Burr. 924. The case of a wager between two
    persons, as to the character of a third, is an example of the second class.
    Cowp. 729; 4 Camp. 152; 1 Rawle, 42; 1 B. & A. 683. Vide Illicit; Unlawful.



    Parent
    That's somne good Sh$t, Gabe (none / 0) (#81)
    by Peaches on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 01:22:53 PM EST
    Was I holding a guitar when I sang that. Was I barefoot?

    For the first time ever on TL (none / 0) (#82)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 01:24:45 PM EST
    I have actually laughed out loud at what someone wrote. Enjoy the beach!

    shizzle and gaydar (none / 0) (#86)
    by Peaches on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 02:22:47 PM EST
    I think what cracked me up the most was Squeaky issuing a ruling on the above shortly.

    Parent
    Gabe is in the hizzy. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 05:59:59 PM EST
    I'm glad you enjoyed it. I stole the "shizzle" bit from the Confetti Records copyright case--a pretty important U.K. case in 2003 in which the Justice ruled that "words of the rap [in dispute], although in a form of English, were for practical purposes a foreign language."

    This part of the ruling always makes me smile:

    The nub of the original complaint, principally advanced by Mr Pascal, is that the words of the rap (or at least that part contributed by Elephant Man) contained references to violence and drugs. This led to the faintly surreal experience of three gentlemen in horsehair wigs examining the meaning of such phrases as "mish mish man" and "shizzle (or sizzle) my nizzle".

    Also, I'm sorry for your snow. I live in Santa Monica and it is gorgeous today.

    Parent

    Welcome to Internet Debate! (none / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 01:34:43 PM EST
    Very good Gabe.

    On the plus side....where else could we all get together and share ideas but on the internet?  On the down side....it will never be as clear, concise, or productive as looking each other in the eye while having a discussion.

    You take the good with the bad....it still beats watching television.  

    paraphrasing a fount of immortal wisdom. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 01:38:13 PM EST
    Hey watch it, I resemble that remark.

    Wait a minute (none / 0) (#85)
    by Peaches on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 01:38:36 PM EST
    Going to the Beach? WTF? Do you realize that we just got dumped on with 20 inches of snow. I spent four hours this morning shoveling my driveway. Beach?

    Heh (none / 0) (#87)
    by roy on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 02:58:53 PM EST
    Not sure if I agree, but at least it's nice to be included.

    Objective reality more the issue (none / 0) (#89)
    by Torq88 on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 12:46:59 PM EST
    Look I'm an engineer so I deal with reality. Free speech is certainly part of the issue but it's part of the impact in only that free speech allows for the free flow of actual information.

    My point is about simple reality and the definition of common English words and their legal use.

    Zealots hate both free speech as well as empirically derived conclusions. Zealots (most often idiots as well) favor changing word definitions because they convey objective reality when reality is at odds with their agendas and dogma.

    Simply put the advocates of changing the use of the term: "illegal aliens" can't find refuge in either the law or the English language to support the way they want to redefine reality.

    It's like a 3 year old that wants its way and gibbers while crying at Mom or Dad denying the reality around them, sickening really.

    Racism and Bigotry (none / 0) (#91)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    So as an engineer, how would you design a plan to raise public awareness about Racism and Bigotry?

    Do you think that the German laws regarding Nazi Hate Speech are overreaching? Innefectual?

    Do you think that language is always neutral?

    Do you think someone can use language that offends others unintentionally?  I do. Most people, given the choice, which in this case comes with awareness, will choose not to offend someone.

    It comes as  no surprise that legal immigrant voters in Florida are offended by the term illegal alien. My guess is that people that hate mexicans and other spanish speaking people use the term as an insult, especially in its shortened form, 'illegal'.

    Parent

    Why should I care, troll? (none / 0) (#100)
    by Torq88 on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 04:26:47 PM EST
    Squeaky,

    This is silly you know that illegal alien isn't hate speech and that even Germany has lots and lots of laws on its books governing and managing illegal aliens, come on.

    Regarding your silly clueless rant on German hate speech laws:

    Turks & other aliens for example often enter Germany legally as: "guest workers". They remain so in Germany until they violate the German immigration laws and then they become: Illegal Aliens in Germany as everyone with a 3rd grade education can verify online anytime or by calling the most convenient German consulate, silly person.

    See when you are from one country and you enter another country that you are not from every single country on earth terms you an alien. You can be a legal alien, an illegal alien, etc. Every single country on earth operates this way.

    If that offends you you should register your complaint with the German government. I mean you seem to be into their stance on things and their identification and treatment of illegal aliens is far more vigorous and harsh than our own. I used to live there but you can look it up as well. Maybe you should try to get a chance to raise your new ideas by speaking to the UN General Assembly or something since all of them are using the same terms and doing the same things or harsher in terms of managing legal and illegal aliens. You shouldn't try to stand your argument on statements that aren't supported by facts as I've told you before.

    Also you mentioned caring about people's feelings; don't you care about my feelings? I find your positions silly and kind of offensive. Aren't willing to develop an awareness to that and try to mend your ways? I mean that's what the thesis of your statement is supposed to be above isn't it?

    Parent

    Is this thread still going?! Ok... (none / 0) (#92)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 02:26:34 PM EST
    It comes as  no surprise that legal immigrant voters in Florida are offended by the term illegal alien. My guess is that people that hate mexicans and other spanish speaking people use the term as an insult, especially in its shortened form, 'illegal'.

    Couple points. I agree that some do use the term "illegal" and "illegal alien" pejoratively, however, the term "Mexican" is also used pejoratively, as is "American" in some circles, and as are many other terms like "liberal" and "conservative" for example.

    Jeralyn likes "undocumented," do you think no one would use that term pejoratively? And no one be insulted by it?

    Also, in LA anyway, many of those who "hate" Mexicans are Spanish speaking people...

    Pejorative (none / 0) (#93)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 03:06:40 PM EST
    the term "Mexican" is also used pejoratively, as is "American" in some circles, and as are many other terms like "liberal" and "conservative" for example.

    Everyone that likes him thinks Libby is not guilty and everyone who dislikes him thinks he is.

    People who do not like chocolate aren't using the word chocolate as a pejorative. Substituting the word doodoo for chocolate would be a pejorative term for chocolate.

    Many US Americans, when traveling abroad, say that they are from Canada because they do not want to be attacked for the US gov policies and illegal actions that affect the world in a bad way. So 'American' does have a taint but it is not a pejorative term because a pejorative term is a substitute for the proper name.  

    Parent

    Circular, circular, circular (none / 0) (#95)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 03:18:58 PM EST
    Except that "illegal" and "alien" are the proper terms...unless you think they are equivalent to doodoo, which, it has become abundantly clear, you do do.

    That, in a nutshell, is where you are in conflict with many others on this thread.

    I accept that you won't change your opinion, so, moving on...

    fwiw, as early as 1988, when I spent about 4 months in Mexico, Central and South America, many of us Americans said we were Canadians for the exact reasons you state.

    Parent

    not doodoo (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 03:41:18 PM EST
    I guess that you have no empathy for immigrants who are getting bashed.

    Must be that you feel threatened by them or do not like them as a rule.

    Perhaps this is a better example. Native Americans did not like being called Indians. Indians for most, if not all white Americans was an accurate term. The term was around for a long time, I always used it until I realized that people were insulted being called that. Since I do not want to insult a Native American I have not used the term Indian since I found out that Native Americans were insulted by it.

    If I had contempt for Native Americans I certainly would resist acquiescing to their request. So, I do see why you and others have a problem with the new term that Immigrants in Florida are asking for.

    Parent

    If you say so squeaky. (none / 0) (#97)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 03:50:28 PM EST


    Parent
    Native Americans/Indians (none / 0) (#98)
    by Peaches on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 03:58:23 PM EST
    Many Native Americans also reject the term Native American. Some prefer Indian to Native American. They, for good reason, reject both the term native and American. Some only want to be referred to by their traditional tribal names. Some could care less.

    ...

    Sticks and Stones, I say.

    Parent

    Thank Peaches (none / 0) (#101)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 04:27:15 PM EST
    I did not know that there was controversy about the term Native American. It does make sense though.

    What does seem to hold true is that insults are usually defended when the person being insulted is held in low esteem or contempt by the insulter.

    Awareness is important, but once aware intent becomes the issue.

    Terminology becomes more important in relation to ones relative power. A well off white man (top of the power chain in America) can easily say sticks and stones... but a person with little power is not likely to say that amid taunts and really mean it.

    You have the a great luxury to say that names can not hurt you, because you know that the bottom line is you are at, or near the top of the heap.

    Parent

    Yes, of course, I am at the top. (none / 0) (#102)
    by Peaches on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 04:39:00 PM EST
    And names can do irrepairable harm when people are subjected to prejudice and rascist bigotry and hatred.

    But it is not only my white skin and gender that allows me to say Sticks and Stones. I believe that we are ultimately judged by our actions and language is only a tool. Language evolves quickly and banning terms will not reduce the bigotry and hatred that some people feel towards others who are different from his or herself. There are many more important tasks and actions that should be pursued and the argument of politically correct terms ultimately does more harm than good, because they deflect our attention from real situations and institutional policies that cause the greates harm to minorities.

    However, we should all be aware of the language that we use and the potential of insulting others. I do avoid, and I think many others here do also, purposely offending others. But, this does not mean I am in favor of banning terms or requiring that we use one term in the place of another in certain contexts. Again, Language evolves and grammer, rules and vocabulary refuses to stand still. We cannot help offend others in the words we choose to use. We should avoid offending others, but placing regulations on language is extremely impractical.

    Parent

    Banning (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 04:52:03 PM EST
    Language evolves quickly and banning terms will not reduce the bigotry and hatred that some people feel towards others who are different from his or herself.

    I think the Florida approach is not quite banning as there is no punishment for using the 'banned' term.

    My take on it is that is all about raising awareness. I for one had not thought about the term until the 'banning'. My assumption is that the regulation came out of the immigrant population public outcry, not some bureaucrat trying to impose arbitrary useless language because they had the power to do so.

    Parent

    Perhaps, (none / 0) (#104)
    by Peaches on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 04:57:14 PM EST
    But never undersestimate the potential stupidity of a beaurcrat.

    There are many potential reasons to introduce this regulation that has little to do with improving the lives of immigrants, but rather has potential political outcomes that are calculated to help the politician. iow, this might be a way to do nothing for the immigrant population but appearing that one is pro-immigrant.

    Parent

    no doubt (none / 0) (#105)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 05:19:37 PM EST
    Immigrants are vulnerable to stupid bureaucrats but in Florida they have more power that elsewhere. Tancredo dubbing it a third world country shows his fear. Also it seems that the banning is really unpopular amongst those who want to close down the borders.

    How do you think that this regulation could hurt immigrants?

    Parent

    Coincidentally (none / 0) (#106)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 05:35:51 PM EST
    fwiw, it looks as though each of squeaky's various arguments are found right here. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

    I guess this explains his mainly Hispanic take on the legislation despite the sponsoring FL lawmaker's largely Caribbean immigrant constituency.

    fwiw, in the TL-linked article, Sen. Wilson mentions only her own personal dislike of the phrase "illegal alien" as her impetus to do away with the term...

    Parent

    Pejorative (none / 0) (#94)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 03:10:21 PM EST
    the term "Mexican" is also used pejoratively, as is "American" in some circles, and as are many other terms like "liberal" and "conservative" for example.

    People who do not like chocolate aren't using the word chocolate as a pejorative. Substituting the word doodoo for chocolate would be a pejorative term for chocolate.

    Many US Americans, when traveling abroad, say that they are from Canada because they do not want to be blamed for the US gov illegal actions that affect the world in a bad way. So 'American' does have a taint but it is not a  term because a pejorative term is a substitute for the proper name.  

    Parent

    Squeaky I think you are a troll... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Torq88 on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 04:08:29 PM EST
    Could you kindly point me to any actual accepted statistics that Americans Travelling abroad actually claim to be Canadian? I travel all over the world all the time and I have never seen this. Other than randomly from you or on some TV drama I never hear stuff like this.

    I have however heard lots of Canadians and Europeans on my travels use the term American negatively. These countries and their governments are awash in their own scandals so it is kind of a pot-kettle-black thing. --Any words here you'd like me to re-think?--

    Once I tell them that I am perfectly delighted to be an American or I ask a question or two about their own country's latest scandal, they usually settle down or shove off.

    If you ever do travel much squeaky you will find that Americans behave very well compared to any other western country. Americans are consistently more polite, more clean and more well mannered than any other single western group I've encountered.

    I generally travel alone or with my wife and never in a tour group. This gives me an excellent opportunity to view everyone but not be part of a pack. In many of the places I go there are few Americans. In Mexico there are lots of Americans and in Asia there are few. In Europe there are a fair number of American tourists mixed with others of all nations. Frequently I find myself the only "white devil" for miles. More than once whole villages have turned out to see an American 1st hand.

    In a lot of countries Americans are the most prized of visitors. This is especially true in Asia.

    Sometimes in some of the larger cities of the UK or France they speak badly of Americans but literally whore themselves for the yankee dollar. Who can respect that? ;-)

    Perhaps more surprisng to you is that there are even some middle eastern countries that love Americans as well.

    On the subject of chocolate, sure it's used as a pejorative all the time. I'm glad you brought that up. Following your grasping logic squeaky it ought to be slated for book burning along with the other useful & accurate words like: illegal aliens, American, law abiding, etc. By all means add "chocolate" to your pyre as well.


    Parent

    Fla. May Ban Use of Term "Illegal Alien" | 104 comments (104 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment