Wetbacks and Republican Silliness

I bet you have the black eyes to prove that you called an Irishman a mick.

Orwell is smiling in his grave.

The term "illegal" to define someone who has broken the law, is seen by a great many as offensive.

Critics of a clearly insulting term like "wetback" are to be criticized for their criticism.

Madness.

You would be wrong, unless you assume Foofie hates the Irish and makes it clear that he does.

Intent is far more important that word selection.

The term "illegal" doesn't define someone who has broken the law. No one has ever called Bernie Madoff "illegal"; or Newt Gingrich for that matter.

Why is "wetback" any more insulting?

Have you ever broken the law? If you have, would you be offended if I called you an "illegal"?

This never happened in Boston, where discrimination against the Irish over a long period of time, and by the way still exists among the upper classes (Brahmins) has taken place.

No matter how wealthy an Irishman is today in Boston, it's still hard for him/her to crack that uppercrust layer of Bostonian aristocrats.

This has been well documented in the area of Beacon Hill real estate deals where Irish "need not apply" to rent or to buy.

I answered the question in my first post. The term wetback has no place in society and I hope this guy looses his office.

That being said it is a shame how people will use a topic like this to control the debate on illegal immigration. You are either a legal immigrant or an illegal immigrant.

Is that the source of your offense?

If you called me an illegal gambler, an illegal drug user, or an illegal mattress tag tearer I would not be offended in the least.

The term "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" and accurate descriptors, and unlike "wetback," not intended to be offensive.

On the other hand the term "undocumented immigrant" is not an attempt to accurately describe someone who has entered a country in violation of its laws, but to make a political statement.

Frankly, I don't think people who break the law have much of a case for taking offense over how they, as criminals, are labelled, and from my experience most don't. It's the folks like you who seem to want to take offense for them.

Maybe we should consider the feelings of bank robbers and begin to call them "unsanctioned withdrawers."

I'm no fan of taxes, but the people who break our tax laws are "tax cheats" not "resistors of a confiscatory government."

Obviously illegal immigrants are much more that their crime, but so is a murderer. When discussing immigration and the impact of illegal immigration, these folks don't have much more of an identity than "illegal immigrant." It's kind of like when I get called a "rich guy" in discussions centered on economics and taxation. Should I be taking offense because those who use the term either don't appreciate or won't acknowledge all of the other things I am?

Never?

If so it just reinforces my native hatred of Boston. Apparently it's robbed it's Irish of their senses of humor.

The term "illegal" (without a modifier) is definitely considered offensive by anyone who knows someone who is here "illegally". Think about what you would want your loved ones called if they were in this situation.

The term "anchor baby" is even more offensive for all of the obvious reasons.

The term "wetback" is not any more offensive to anyone who has friends or family in this situation.

Of course I don't mind at all if the Republican party keeps using any of these words.

It just amuses me that they seem to think that one word is somehow less offensive to the Hispanic Americans they are trying to reach. It isn't.

These are the people who say they are "tolerant" and "progressive".

Except when there is a point of view they do not agree with, then they just revert to childish name calling.

There is a rather large difference between childish name calling and writing one's intolerance into the law.

I'm just fine with anyone that merely wishes to express their intolerance by childish name calling. That doesn't affect me in the real world.

I know several people who are here illegally and I don't find the term offensive, and as far as I know they don't either. I can say with absolute certaintly that if my loved ones illegally immigrated it wouldn't bother me one bit if anyone referred to them as "illegal immigrants," in the context of a discussion on illegal immigration and its impact.

Now if someone was stupid enough to insist on calling them only "illegal immigrant," as in a store clerk saying "Here's your change illegal immigrant," or a doctor who asked "What seems to be the problem illegal immigrant?" I would think them idiots but still would not be offended.

If I snuck across the border and entered Mexico illegally, I wouldn't care what anyone called me as long as they didn't throw me in jail.

You may prefer entirely open borders and favor total amnesty for people who have illegally entered or remained in our country, but that doesn't obviate the fact that there are laws and they were broken. These folks illegally immigrated to this country and they are illegal immigrants.

You seem to think that people who break the law have no choice and that any reference to their criminality is offensive stigmatization.

Once some has paid their debt to society the slate should be cleared, but while they continue their legal ways, it's preposterous to suggest they should be treated is if their criminality was a disability.

You forgot Pinko Commie.

Just to put out the opinion, I consider illegal immigrant to be nothing more than descriptive. Anchor Baby sounds highly offensive, especially as it implies somebody is using their child for their personal gain. Wetback seems somewhere in between, but it's not a term I would be likely to use in any context.

To me the term "illegal immigrant" where illegal is an adjective describing a type of immigrant is far less offensive than the use of "illegal" as a noun. But my real point is that what really matters is your attitude toward them. For those people who detest them, any of these terms is fine.

You know the same people who claimed to detest these people would be swimming the Rio Grande themselves if they had been unlucky enough to be born on the wrong side of that river and the only way they had to feed their families is to come here and work at **** jobs that still pay more then they can earn on the other side of the river.

No hate strangely directed at the people who hired them or all of us who benefit from having a cheap work force with no rights of any kind.

If we was a moral country we would allow them to come here legally to work on those jobs with at least some legal protections. Oh yes but they take always great jobs such as picking tomatoes by the pound or working with hot tar on a roof that before the tar is over a hundred degrees.

My other favorite Republican word for them is "invader"

The image of invaders coming to water the lawns and take care of the kids of the hapless foe always makes me chuckle.

I never said I did? Here's what I said earlier:
"However, I've known more than one person of Irish descent that proudly referred to himself as a Mick. Sort of like thumbing his nose at the history of his ethnic group. But, then again, the Irish did pick themselves up from their own bootstraps. I would not compare them to all other ethnicities. Sort of like trivializing their accomplishments."

I don't use ethnic epithets. I was referencing another poster's reference to that term, since I've heard it used by people of Irish descent in a non-pejorative manner. However, I really don't have much to do with people that have an Irish "identity," since their experience is often too different in some aspects than the one I've experienced. But, I do observe people, and find their identities interesting from a sociological point of view.

I would guess the exclusiveness applies to many others.

Sung to the tune of "It's a Small World After All" (from the Disney Land ride), I think one could also sing, "It's a Small WASP World After All."

If there is a second go around on this Earth, I'm coming back as a Methodist. I was impressed by their patriotic attitude in the service. Meaning, in my opinion, collectively they didn't have to think twice that they loved their country.

Ah yes (said in the style of W.C. Fields), a pejorative from the old days of HUAC aficianados. 1950's nostalgia.