May I see your papers, citizen?

@djjd62,

I'm sure we disagree on a lot, but I appreciate it. I don't see any comment of mine that would lead someone to respond with his comment. It was ignorant and quite frankly disgusting and well beneath him.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Quote:

Of course, you have the right to ignore me on this... then again you can refer to people as "niggers" if you want... no one can stop you just because some of us find it offensive.

I think this was a little uncalled for. 'Illegal aliens' refers to behavior, not intrinsic characteristics.

People who commit felonies, for example, are known as Felons. It is not out of bounds to describe people by the actions they've taken.

I'm for legalizing everyone who is here, as well - so it's not a partisan thing.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

I'm sure we disagree on a lot, but I appreciate it. I don't see any comment of mine that would lead someone to respond with his comment. It was ignorant and quite frankly disgusting and well beneath him.

Ebrown gets pretty worked up over immigration issues.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

Sorry, CostalRat,

If you care about the feelings of others... the proper term is "undocumented". The term "illegal immigrant" (where illegal is an adjective rather than a noun) is slightly less offensive. The issue is that you are completely dehumanizing someone, taking away any indication that they have any worth, or even any identity, outside of their "crime".

Let me ask you this, if you daughter married someone who crossed a border illegally? Would you use this word in their presence?

I thought you were someone who claimed to be living by the example of Christ. I would have guessed that being sensitive to the feelings of others would be a part of this.

Jesus interacted with the "woman caught in sin"-- there is legitimate discussion in the faith community about how this applies to current issues. But one thing is certain....

Jesus refrained from referring to her has a "whore".

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

i have no problem with the term illegal, i was saying that ebrowns offense to the word was extreme

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

Your Jesus story is quite a stretch as a defense of inordinate linguistic sensitivity on your part.

You are the one trying to "dehumanize" people as bigots ebrown, and it's particularly nasty that you do it when they are not bigots. It's a tired low blow.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Just to add, I don't really care here. People say all kinds of things in a forum that hopefully they wouldn't say in person (at least I hope not).

I will add that if you are talking to someone, and you don't know they agree with you completely on this topic, I would avoid the use of "illegal" as a noun. If you use this term when you are with Hispanics you don't know very well-- you are an idiot.

I have never encountered this in real life.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I understand Cy. I get it that it is an issue near and dear to his heart. But it does not excuse his comment. It was uncalled for and quite frankly offensive. The issue of what to do about the illegal immigration problem is complex and quite frankly the solution is not going to come about without some pain on all sides. I certainly recognize that those in this country illegally are probably going to have to be fast-tracked to gain legal status. While I'm not fully comfortable with that solution, I recognize the argument for that. But in conjuncture with that, there needs to be a plug on those crossing the border illegally. Otherwise, the problem will never, ever go away.

I don't think the Arizona law is the answer because even if its legality is upheld, it will not solve the larger issues nor stop people from entering the US illegally. It will only send them home where they will attempt again to return. This solves nothing for us or for those coming here illegally. (See how well I avoid the term "illegal immigrant?)

3 Replies

@ebrown p,

i would never walk up to a hispanic and say hey, are you an illegal immigrant, if however in the course of a conversation i found out they were, i guess then it would depend on how the conversation went, i mean, they know they are, i don't have to tell them, if i was describing them to someone i would say, i met a person the other day who is an illegal immigrant (i have met such and worked with them)

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

I don't know, Robert,

I don't think I have referred to people as bigots in this argument (other than Russell Pearce who really clearly is a bigot). I may be reacting more angrily to CoastalRat then he merits. I will take a deep breath and think about this.

That being said Language does matter, and it is true that in real life, people using the term "illegal" as a noun will be strongly challenged in many circles-- not just politically, but because it does refer to real people in a very negative way. I haven't heard the term used this way in real life (and I would object if I did). I do discuss in a respectful way the issue in real life with people who disagree with me,.

I guess I am ready to drop this issue here, now that I have made my objection. (I think the value of language might make a separate interesting thread).

That being said, in my opinion this really is an very offensive law that is intentionally hostile to Hispanics and damaging to Hispanic US citizens.

0 Replies

@djjd62,

If you went up to a Hispanic and said "the federal law against illegals [is] also racist since most illegals in this country are non-caucasian" you will likely cause offense.

If you said "the federal law against undocumented immigrants [is] also racist since most undocumented immigrants in this country are non-caucasian" you would not cause offense with anybody.

The term "illegal immigrant" where illegal is used as an adjective is somewhat less likely to be seen as offensive.

Note: In this post, I am simply explaining the way things are-- not arguing for them.

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

Quote:

I understand Cy. I get it that it is an issue near and dear to his heart. But it does not excuse his comment. It was uncalled for and quite frankly offensive.

I agree, which is why I posted that it was uncalled for. What more, it's not even accurate - it doesn't describe inherent characteristics at all, but a crime committed.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

The law says nothing about "undocumented IMMIGRANTS" - they're not "immigrants" to begin with, and the law doesn't call them that. It is a federal CRIME to be in the US illegally, punished as a misdemeanor the first time (up to 6 months in prison plus a fine) and a FELONY in case of a second arrest for the same CRIME. How much simpler can the text of the federal law be made for you?! The Arizona law is in compliance with the federal version, so I don't know why all the PC crowd here is getting so exercised about it.

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

Quote:

I don't think the Arizona law is the answer because even if its legality is upheld, it will not solve the larger issues nor stop people from entering the US illegally. It will only send them home where they will attempt again to return. This solves nothing for us or for those coming here illegally. (See how well I avoid the term "illegal immigrant?)

sure it does....as states continue their recent trend of giving up on Washington ever acting and so they write laws targeting this illegal activity in their own states increasing numbers of Mexicans will hopefully decide to locate either in Mexico or Canada. Many Illegals cleared out of Oklahoma after they passed a rarely enforced and held up in court law, they all went someplace. The states who want illegals can have all they want, those who don't will have fewer. Canada can become the new primary home to illegal Mexicans if they desire.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Pfff, this will never be an effective solution. The real key is to go after those who employ them with stiff fines.

It's all about supply and demand... unless you remove the demand, NO amount of laws will cut the supply off.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

that is primarily what Oklahoma did, however that law has run into trouble with the courts. Arizona law also goes after employers of illegals, but everyone is fixated on this myth that cops are now going to walk up to Mexican looking people and ask for id, and jail them if they don't have it.....we dont ever seem to get around to what this law actually says.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

that is primarily what Oklahoma did, however that law has run into trouble with the courts.

Link? I'd like to read more if you have more info on it

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@High Seas,

if you didn't have me on ignore, you'd see that sometimes we can agree

i don't dislike you (i admit i don't get you sometimes)

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

BY ROBERT BOCZKIEWICZ April 20, 2010

DENVER " An appeals court refused Monday to reconsider its decision barring Oklahoma from enforcing key parts of a law intended to crack down on the hiring of illegal immigrants.

The decision by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is a blow to state officials and other advocates of House Bill 1804, the anti-illegal immigration law passed in 2007.

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-immigration-law-takes-hit/article/3455374?custom_click=rss#ixzz0mQNr37n2

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

And this is where we have common ground Cy. I firmly believe that the federal government should enforce the laws that exist against employers who hire illegal aliens. (Sorry, but I will continue to refer to them in this manner. Hope you are not offended Cy.) I believe there should be stepped up enforcement against employers while also bringing to bear additional resources to stem the flow of illegal aliens across our borders. But there also needs to be stepped up enforcement on a local level in some way, maybe in the way Arizona is going about it, maybe in some other way. I applaud Arizona for doing something, but I believe the effort will fail (assuming it is upheld) because simply trying to eliminate the supply will not fix the issue.

EDIT: I'll have to reread the bill to see if it indeed addresses the employer side of the issue as mentioned by H2O.

2 Replies

May I see your papers, citizen?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know